[nagdu] National Epidemic of Horrible People Pretending to Be Disabled |
Tami Jarvis
tami at poodlemutt.com
Tue Oct 15 02:26:23 UTC 2013
Sheila,
Yeeks! And I thought it was grim out here in the rural wilds... I can
get to the local bus stop and get somewhere; it's just expensive and a
long trip. But for rural owner-trainers, the cost and time of getting to
wherever the testing takes place would be quite a burden over and above
the cost of testing and certification itself. Well, even when I lived in
Portland, getting down to Salem to be tested would have been a problem
and expense, so I was not much less in favor of having to do such a
thing than I am out here. /smile/
Also, if I can't use public transportation until after the test, I would
still have to hire a driver for a 600 mile round trip covering at least
3 days. That would be a big bummer for sure. Well, I have a driver, but
a lot of rural disabled folks don't.
Going back to Marion's ponderings about the motivations behind CCI's
push for ID requirements -- which is also echoed in some articles by
other training programs -- I do wonder if they are thinking they would
be exempted from the testing requirements or perhaps be in charge of the
system? Or is it just a chance to work in their usual fundraising spiel?
I don't know, but the bit where the article about able-bodied folks
faking disabilities is suddenly co-opted by statements about how the
problem is disabled people thinking they can train their own dogs, which
of course they can't, sure does set my teeth on edge. /lol/ I guess the
big insistence that real service dogs are specially bred for generations
is more a sales pitch for established programs over newer start ups than
anything else. If I remember that the nature of the business end of the
training programs is charitable fundraising, then it all actually makes
sense. It's all about brand marketing, I guess.
I think the chances of a standardized testing system being established
are pretty slim, just because of the cost of it. I do wish, though, that
these folks would think about the unintended consequences of their
proclamations about the perfection of real service dogs. I have a grim
suspicion that more problems for service dog users may come about
because of unrealistic expectations than are caused by rotten pets of
able-bodied folks. I hope I'm wrong there.
Tami
On 10/14/2013 04:50 PM, Sheila Leigland wrote:
> hi Tami right now in our state of Montana, we don't have any bus service
> out of Great falls because the carrier decided that it wasn't cost
> effective to keep the system running so if we don't drive or have a
> driver we couldn't get to the capitol of our state even if we wanted to.
> We don't know when this situation will be resolved. as it stands now we
> are renting a van to go to our state convention in billings which is
> about 225 miles from here because it is the only way we can get there.
> because we can't get out of here it goes without saying that getting to
> a place of certification for our dogs wouldn't be posible if I agreed
> with this which I don't.
> On 10/14/2013 3:20 PM, Tami Jarvis wrote:
>> Danielle,
>>
>> It's a fair question. In short, the biggest deal with requiring proof
>> of training is the cost of creating and administering such a program
>> and exactly who is expected to pay for it.
>>
>> Are the fundraising organizations that provide trained service dogs to
>> be exempted from the standardized testing? If not, what will the fees
>> and cost of transportation to the testing facilities do to their
>> budgets and the availability of service dogs for those who can't or
>> don't want to train their own? Or should those costs be passed on to
>> the consumers in fees for the dogs? Perhaps, instead of requiring the
>> training programs to take the dogs to be tested, it should be up to
>> the handler to do that before they can take the dog out to work in
>> public?
>>
>> Another big consideration is that many service dogs do work for people
>> with disabilities that affect their ability to handle and manipulate
>> objects such as, say, ID cards. It may be easy for you to whip out a
>> card every time you walk in a door, but for some people it would be
>> difficult, painful, or even impossible. How is that to be dealt with,
>> then?
>>
>> There are a number of other considerations, which may or may not count
>> as big deals, depending on point of view, I guess. On the larger
>> scale, though, I think cost and logistics are the biggest ones.
>>
>> Meanwhile, as things now stand, our dogs' training must speak for
>> itself, every day, everywhere we go. That is true no matter who
>> trained the dog or what paperwork is involved. It's up to us as
>> handlers to ensure that our dogs are up to snuff all day every day in
>> the real world, not just at a specific place and time under controlled
>> conditions to pass a test. If we as handlers do not keep our dogs up
>> to snuff, we may be asked to remove them. We can even be charged for
>> damages if any other member of the general public would be charged.
>> Thus, businesses and other places of public accommodation do have
>> recourse against badly behaved dogs with irresponsible handlers,
>> whether the handler has ID from a training program or not. Or, for
>> that matter, whether the dog is a service dog or not.
>>
>> Tami
>>
>> On 10/14/2013 11:25 AM, Danielle A. Creapeau wrote:
>>> I don't see what the big deal is regarding stricter proof of
>>> authenticity. That's why the schools give us ID cards, right? If
>>> someone trains his or her own service dog, couldn't there be a way to
>>> develop certification criteria that they would have to meet? For
>>> example, if I'm in Milwaukee and I train my own guide, I should be
>>> able to go to Madison, the state's capitol, to take some sort of
>>> standardized test with my dog to prove that he/she is fit to work.
>>> I guess the way I see it is that I'd rather be able to take my dog
>>> with me and show her ID than to let things stand the way they are and
>>> be refused entrance because too many people tried to pull a fast one.
>>>
>>> On 10/14/13, Sheila Leigland <sleigland at bresnan.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/14/2013 10:25 AM, National Association of Guide Dog Users wrote:
>>>>> Dear All, I think we should be very skeptical of the flurry of such
>>>> > articles in the past couple months. Most of them have one thing in
>>>> > common: Most either refer to or are featuring CCI consumers. CCI is
>>>> > the organization promoting an online petition to regulate the
>>>> online
>>>> > sale of service dog gear and identification.
>>>> >
>>>> > These reports have asserted it is a federal crime to pass a pet off
>>>> > as a service dog. I find it very interesting, as violation of
>>>> the ADA
>>>> > is not a criminal offense, rather, the aDA is a civil law with no
>>>> > criminal remedies.
>>>> >
>>>> > It is my personal opinion that the prevalence of this sort of
>>>> > behavior is being intentionally exaggerated in an effort to support
>>>> > the need for certification. This would only benefit the training
>>>> > programs, not the disabled community. I am of the opinion that the
>>>> > best way to counter this issue - if it is really an issue - is to
>>>> > better educate places of public accommodation about what is
>>>> really a
>>>> > service dog and that the rights of the disabled under the ADA
>>>> are not
>>>> > absolute, but carry with it specific responsibilities of acceptable
>>>> > behavior.
>>>> >
>>>> > I received a call from a restaurant a couple weeks ago about
>>>> someone
>>>> > who came in with an untethered dog, claiming it was a service dog.
>>>> > The owner asked if it was a service dog and the patron told her
>>>> that
>>>> > it was none of her business and she could not ask any questions
>>>> > because doing so was a violation of HIPAA. I advised her that she
>>>> > could and gave her the questions she could ask. I was advised the
>>>> > patron came in again a couple days later, she asked the right
>>>> > questions, he again made the same assertions, he was asked to
>>>> leave,
>>>> > and he told her he would see her in court. She handed him our
>>>> > brochure and told him to give me a call if he had any questions.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > According to the Americans with Disabilities Act, it's a federal
>>>> > crime to use a fake service animal to take advantage of privileges
>>>> > reserved for those who genuinely need the assistance of such pets.
>>>> > Nonetheless, according to a recent report from the Associated
>>>> Press,
>>>> > the use of phony "dog tags" is on the rise, with owners faking
>>>> papers
>>>> > or buying badges off the Internet just so that they can bring their
>>>> > pooches into restaurants, shops, and other venues that don't
>>>> usually
>>>> > allow dogs. Advocates of both pets and the disabled are divided
>>>> as to
>>>> > how to police those who abuse service animal privileges, and
>>>> some are
>>>> > calling for federal authorities to better regulate and enforce
>>>> > service animal rules around the country.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > While it's assumed that only a small percentage of the population
>>>> > would even think of using a faux service dog to avoid leaving a pet
>>>> > outside a store or at home in order to grab a bite at a restaurant,
>>>> > even a single incident of phony service dog usage is enough to get
>>>> > people-disabled and able-bodied alike-up in arms. Outrage followed
>>>> > the story of a 33-year-old New Yorker named Brett David, who was
>>>> > featured in the New York Post over the summer. David bragged about
>>>> > bringing his fake "therapy dog" named Napoleon into movie theaters,
>>>> > restaurants, nightclubs, Whole Foods, Starbucks, and more mainly
>>>> > because "I was sick of tying up my dog outside," as he put it.
>>>> > "Sometimes, they'll give me a hassle and say bring the papers next
>>>> > time, but for five bucks, you order [a patch] off eBay, and it
>>>> works
>>>> > 90 percent of the time," he explained.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > People like David aren't the only ones pretending to be disabled to
>>>> > take advantage of special perks. In late September, the Walt Disney
>>>> > Company felt compelled to change its disabled guest policy at theme
>>>> > parks partly due to "abuse of the system." The announcement came
>>>> > after reports surfaced that wealthy guests were paying
>>>> > wheelchair-riding tour guides top dollar so that the group could
>>>> use
>>>> > the line-skipping privileges granted to the disabled at Disney
>>>> theme
>>>> > parks.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Meanwhile, over the years, police around the U.S. periodically
>>>> engage
>>>> > in sweeps to round up drivers fraudulently using handicapped
>>>> parking
>>>> > passes, and apparently it's pretty easy to snag people abusing the
>>>> > system. Last spring, over the course of a mere four hours,
>>>> > authorities in Oakland, Calif., confiscated 13 handicapped placards
>>>> > being used illegally by drivers. That's out of a total of 70
>>>> placards
>>>> > they came across, meaning nearly one in five was fraudulent.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > A report in Seattle published over the summer estimated that one in
>>>> > eight drivers using disabled parking placards is doing so
>>>> > fraudulently, costing the city $1.4 million annually. Like in
>>>> > Seattle, drivers with such placards get to park for free in
>>>> > Providence, R.I., where it just so happens that there has been an
>>>> > influx of cars with disabled parking passes near train stations and
>>>> > bus stops. Police began routinely demanding verification and handed
>>>> > out multiple $500 fines to those who were using passes
>>>> registered to
>>>> > someone else. "Not only is it an affront to the persons who have a
>>>> > disability and need the space, they're cheating the city out of
>>>> > revenue by parking there," one Providence police officer said of
>>>> the
>>>> > offenders.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > In yet another sting, in Orlando, Fla., police zeroed in on
>>>> offenders
>>>> > like a 34-year-old woman using a placard registered to someone who
>>>> > was 85, and who had died a few months prior to the bust.
>>>> Apparently,
>>>> > the driver, arrested just before 3 a.m., was using the placard in
>>>> > order to park in a convenient handicap spot downtown-so that her
>>>> car
>>>> > was nearby when the bars closed.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Suspicions of disabled placard abuse have gotten so bad in New
>>>> > Jersey-where more than 500,000 people have special placard and
>>>> > license plate privileges-that the state introduced tougher
>>>> > regulations last spring. In the past, anyone who classified for a
>>>> > pass could renew automatically every three years. As of August 1,
>>>> > though, drivers must submit proof of their condition every three
>>>> > years before they're granted special privileges. Disabled parking
>>>> > placards were also redesigned so that it is easier for police and
>>>> > meter checkers to see expiration dates, and so that it's more
>>>> > difficult for drivers to unlawfully change the information on the
>>>> > passes.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Brad Tuttle @bradrtuttle
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Brad Tuttle covers business and personal finance for TIME. He lives
>>>> > in Massachusetts with his wife and four sons, and also teaches
>>>> > journalism at UMass-Amherst.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________ nagdu mailing list
>>>> > nagdu at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
>>>> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
>>>> info for
>>>> > nagdu:
>>>> >
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/blind411%40verizon.net
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nagdu mailing list nagdu at nfbnet.org
>>>> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe,
>>>> > change your list options or get your account info for nagdu:
>>>> >
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/sleigland%40bresnan.netthanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> for pointing that out. I didn't think that it was a federal crime and I
>>>> agree that more regulations of service gear will only benefit the
>>>> training programs. I already am not convinced that the problem is as
>>>> prevalent as people think and I also believe that training programs
>>>> don't listen to blind folks as they should. It seems to me that
>>>> anything
>>>> that happens is often at first glance the handler's fault.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nagdu mailing list
>>>> nagdu at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> nagdu:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/dcreapeau%40gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nagdu mailing list
>>> nagdu at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> nagdu:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/tami%40poodlemutt.com
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nagdu mailing list
>> nagdu at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nagdu:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/sleigland%40bresnan.net
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/tami%40poodlemutt.com
>
More information about the NAGDU
mailing list