[nagdu] Oregon's proposal

Sat Mar 7 16:32:28 UTC 2015

I have never decided to stay away from a store because of where they
place items.  I have my dog under control and it has never been an
issue.  I have also raised 3 sons and took them anywhere I wanted them
to go. I only had one issue with my youngest son who picked up an item
at the check out too.  That is where I seem to have most trouble.  We
walked clear out of the store with the item and took it back.  No harm
was done.

On 3/7/15, Dudley Hanks <dhanks at dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
> We disagree.
>
> The issue is much the same for parents of young children as it is for
> handlers of service animals.
>
> Merchants can use a more child / service animal friendly layout, but many
> choose not to simply in order to put their wares in super obvious, but
> vulnerable, positions.
>
> Any damage is as much their responsibility as it is of the handler /
> parent.
>
> If I am to be an "equal" member of society, I should not have to pick and
> choose which stores I can enter safely, and which I can't.  Fully
> able-bodied people don't usually have to make that decision.
>
> Regards,
> Dudley, with Michener
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marianne Denning [mailto:marianne at denningweb.com]
> Sent: March-07-15 8:49 AM
> To: Dudley Hanks; NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog
> Users
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Oregon's proposal
>
> I believe we should pay for any damages caused by our dogs.  If I
> choose to go into a place where there is a lot of breakables, open
> food items and other obstacles to my dog I need to be very sure my dog
> is under control.  I have been in many of these places over the past
> 25 years of dog handling and have only had 2 issues and that was with
> candy bars at a check out counter.  I offered to pay for the candy bar
> my dog picked up and, in both cases, the checker refused to charge me
> for it.  I gave it back to them because my dog did not leave any marks
> on it.  We do need to be in control of our dogs and our children.
> That goes for anyone who takes service animals or pets into a place.
> If I went to a place where there was a person or another animal
> creating a challenge for my dog, my first step would be to remove my
> dog.  I would deal with the situation once things have calmed down.
> If I stay in that situation I could heighten the problems and would be
> partially responsible for the outcome. That does not mean I am giving
> in, just choosing to get things calm before addressing the issue.
> Luckily, I have never been in this situation.
>
> On 3/7/15, Dudley Hanks via nagdu <nagdu at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>> The bill also has provisions to hold the users of Guide dogs responsible
>> for
>> any damage that might be caused by an "out of control" animal, and
>> provisions which would allow merchants to provide alternate services to
>> disabled persons if making modifications to assist disabled persons costs
>> more than the merchant wants to spend.
>>
>> An interesting omission is any provision to hold a member of the public
>> responsible for their action if they cause a service animal to become out
>> of
>> control.
>>
>> As noted in earlier posts, I think disabled persons are way too eager to
>> pay
>> for damages their service animal might be associated with, when in fact
>> that
>> damage occurred because of circumstances entirely beyond the control of
>> the
>> handler, and which very easily might be the responsibility of a
>> mischievous
>> or mean-spirited, sighted person.
>>
>> Does anybody know when this bill will be in committee deliberations?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dudley, with Michener
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Ann Edie via
>> nagdu
>> Sent: March-07-15 1:20 AM
>> To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
>> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Oregon's proposal
>>
>> Hi, Tami,
>>
>> You can relax. You will still be able to shop and enter your local city
>> hall
>> or post office with your guide dog. You may, however, starve to death
>> unless
>> you apply for and display on your assistance animal the required
>> assistance
>> animal tag which will permit you to enter a "food establishment" anywhere
>> in
>> your honorable state. In other words, your legislature is saying, "We
>> will
>> comply with the ADA everywhere except where we don't care to do so." This
>> is
>> the first step to ...?
>>
>> The bill gives responsibility for issueing assistance animal tags to the
>> Department of Human Resources, and it says that the person with a
>> disability
>> has to fill out the application form (annually), pay the fee, and get a
>> letter from his/her health care professional stating that the assistance
>> animal is required to mitigate the person's disability and stating the
>> tasks
>> that the assistance animal performs. I wonder whether this means that the
>> health care professional is prescribing the tasks that would mitigate the
>> disability in general, or whether the health care professional is
>> expected
>> to judge whether the particular individual animal actually performs the
>> tasks needed by the person in a reliable and consistent manner? In either
>> case, I don't believe the health care professional is qualified to judge
>> whether a blind person requires a guide dog (or a cane, or a sighted
>> guide,
>> or a sonic guide, or any other device or method) and I certainly don't
>> see
>> health care professionals as qualified to assess the training or skills
>> of
>> assistance animals. So, on what basis is the health care professional
>> supposed to base his/her assertions in the letter? Or is there another
>> part
>> of the application which asks for proof of the training and performance
>> of
>> the assistance animal, like asking for a card from a training program?
>>
>> (By the way, the proposed law, as I read it, doesn't say anything about
>> visitors from other states who are accompanied by assistance animals, so
>> I
>> assume that we would all starve to death if we were to visit Oregon,
>> unless
>> we somehow acquire the state's assistance animal tag for our guides. You
>> might want to remind your legislators of that little issue, as well. I
>> know
>> that I will not be eager to visit your fair state if this bill becomes
>> law.)
>>
>> Better start mustering the forces. Looks like you're in for a fight, or
>> at
>> least another campaign of education!
>>
>> Best,
>> Ann
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tami Jarvis
>> via
>> nagdu
>> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 1:59 PM
>> To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
>> Subject: [nagdu] Oregon's proposal
>>
>> I just got the below information about Oregon's latest proposal. And here
>> I
>> was thinking after the last couple of attempts were dropped, folks had
>> given
>> up for awhile. Silly me!
>>
>> Read away. I haven't yet, except for a brief scan. I'm going to need to
>> find
>> fortitude!
>>
>> Here's the link:
>>
>> https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB3077/Introduced
>>
>> The text is pasted below. I took out some line numbers where there was
>> only
>> whitespace to save annoyance, but otherwise, this is just as I copied it
>> into my text editor:
>>
>> ***
>>
>> 78th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2015 Regular Session House Bill 3077
>> Sponsored by Representatives ESQUIVEL, KRIEGER, WITT; Representatives
>> HACK,
>> HAYDEN, KENNEMER, NEARMAN, POST, SMITH SUMMARY The following summary is
>> not
>> prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body
>> thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an
>> editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
>> introduced.
>> Creates exemption from pet restriction in food establishments for
>> assistance
>> animal with assist- ance animal tag issued by local jurisdiction.
>> Requires Department of Human Services to adopt procedures for issuance of
>> assistance animal certificates.
>> Requires
>> department to make reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities
>> in
>> application process. Requires waiver of application fee for persons with
>> disabilities who receive disability services provided by or paid for by
>> department and who are eligible for medical assistance.
>> Requires local jurisdiction to issue assistance animal tag upon
>> presentation
>> of assistance animal certificate. Makes assistance animal tag valid
>> throughout state.
>> Allows food establishment or restaurant to inquire whether animal present
>> on
>> premises has valid assistance animal tag.
>> A BILL FOR AN ACT
>> Relating to assistance animals; creating new provisions; and amending ORS
>> 616.700 and 659A.143.
>> Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
>> SECTION 1.
>> (1) As used in this section:
>> (a) “Assistance animal” has the meaning given that term in ORS 659A.143.
>> (b) “Health care practitioner” means a person licensed or certified to
>> provide health care services in this state.
>> (2) The Department of Human Services shall adopt by rule procedures for
>> the
>> issuance and renewal of assistance animal certificates. The department
>> shall
>> issue an assistance ani- mal certificate to any person who:
>> (a) Submits an application in the form and manner prescribed by the
>> department;
>> (b) Pays the application fee prescribed by the department by rule; and
>> (c) Provides a statement signed
>> by the person’s treating health care practitioner, dated within six
>> months
>> preceding the date of application:
>> (A) Stating that the person requires an assistance animal due to a
>> disability; and
>> (B)
>> Briefly
>> summarizing the nature of the work or task that the assistance animal
>> per-
>> forms or the other assistance provided by the animal.
>> (3) The procedures adopted
>> by the department under subsection (2) of this section shall ensure that
>> reasonable accommodations are made for the applicant’s disability,
>> including, but not limited to:
>> (a) Permitting the application and the health care practitioner’s
>> statement
>> to be sub- mitted by mail, in person or electronically; and
>> (b) Providing application assistance, including, if appropriate,
>> assisting
>> the person in ob- taining the statement from the person’s health care
>> practitioner.
>> (4) The department shall waive the application fee for any person with a
>> disability who:
>> (a) Receives disability services provided by or paid for by the
>> department;
>> and
>> NOTE:
>> Matter in
>> boldfaced
>> type in an amended section is new;
>> matter [
>> italic and bracketed
>> ] is existing law to be omitted.
>> New sections are in
>> boldfaced
>> type.
>> LC 178
>> HB
>> 3077
>>
>>
>> (b) Is eligible for medical assistance.
>> SECTION 2.
>> (1) A person who is issued an assistance animal certificate under section
>> 1
>> of this 2015 Act may present the certificate at a location described in
>> this
>> subsection and obtain an assistance animal tag. Each county shall make
>> assistance animal tags available at the county sheriff’s office. If the
>> county has declared a dog control district, the county shall also make
>> assistance animal tags available at any county office site where a person
>> may obtain a dog license. If a city has a dog licensing and control
>> program,
>> the city shall make assistance animal tags available at any city office
>> site
>> where a person may obtain a dog li- cense.
>> (2) A county or
>> city shall record any information required by Department of Human
>> Services
>> rules regarding a person presenting an assistance animal certificate, the
>> assistance animal serving the person and the issued assistance animal
>> tag.
>> The county or city shall forward a copy of the information to the
>> department. The department, a county or a city may not charge a fee for
>> an
>> assistance animal tag.
>> (3) An assistance
>> animal tag is valid in all areas of this state. An assistance animal tag
>> is
>> valid for a specific assistance animal and, except as provided by
>> department
>> rules, may not be transferred.
>> (4) The department shall provide the assistance animal tags to the
>> issuing
>> counties and cities without charge. The department shall design
>> assistance
>> animal tags to be suitable for wearing by a wide variety of assistance
>> animals. The department may make assistance
>> ani-
>> mal tags available in a form suitable
>> for carrying by a person whose assistance animal is of a type physically
>> incapable of wearing a tag.
>> SECTION 3.
>> ORS 616.700 is amended to read:
>> 616.700. The State Department of Agriculture shall enforce the provisions
>> of
>> ORS 616.695 to
>> 616.755 and adopt rules necessary therefor in accordance with the
>> applicable
>> provisions of ORS chapter 183, to insure and verify that:
>> (1) Food establishments are constructed and maintained in a clean,
>> healthful
>> and sanitary con- dition. This shall include floors, walls, ceilings,
>> doors,
>> windows, lighting and ventilation, toilet and lavatory facilities, water
>> supply, separation or partitioning of rooms, health and cleanliness of
>> per-
>> sonnel, cleanliness and sanitation of surrounding premises, disposal of
>> all
>> waste and sewage mate- rial, insect and rodent control, construction and
>> sanitation of equipment and utensils, and prohibition of pets therein. [
>> However, ] The department may not prohibit the presence of as- sistance
>> animals that have valid assistance animal tags issued under section 2 of
>> this 2015 Act.
>> ORS 616.695 to 616.755 shall not be applied to prevent licensing and
>> operation of a food es- tablishment solely because such establishment is
>> in
>> an area which is part of and not separate from a domestic kitchen if the
>> establishment is upon investigation by the department found to be con-
>> structed and maintained in a clean, healthful and sanitary condition.
>> (2) Food establishments maintain time and temperature controls,
>> indicating
>> and recording thermometers and indicating pressure gauges for pressure
>> cookers and retorts, minimum
>> temper-
>> ature and time period standards for cooking foods, and other facilities
>> necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of ORS 616.695 to 616.755.
>> (3) Food dispensed, transported, sold, held for sale, stored, salvaged or
>> displayed, is not filthy, decomposed, putrid, unsafe, contaminated,
>> deleterious to health, unfit, unwholesome, unclean, in- sanitary or
>> diseased.
>> SECTION 4.
>> ORS 659A.143 is amended to read:
>> [2]
>> HB
>> 3077
>>
>>
>> 659A.143. (1) As used in this section:
>> (a) “Assistance animal” means a dog
>> or other animal designated by administrative rule that has been
>> individually
>> trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual.
>> (b) “Assistance animal trainee”
>> means an animal that is undergoing a course of development and training
>> to
>> do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual that directly
>> relate to the dis- ability of the individual.
>> (c) “Assistance animal trainer” means an individual exercising care,
>> custody
>> and control over an assistance animal trainee during a course of training
>> designed to develop the trainee into an assistance animal.
>> (d) “Food establishment” has the meaning given that term in ORS 616.695.
>> [
>> (d)
>> ]
>> (e)
>> “Place of public
>> accommodation” means a place of public accommodation as defined in ORS
>> 659A.400.
>> (f) “Restaurant” has the meaning given that term in ORS 624.010.
>> (2) A place of public accommodation
>> or of access to state government services, programs or activities may
>> not:
>> (a) Ask an individual about the nature or extent of a disability that the
>> individual has or may have;
>> (b)
>> Unless the
>> place is a food establishment or restaurant, require an individual to
>> provide documentation proving that an animal is an assistance animal or
>> an
>> assistance animal trainee; or
>> (c) Notwithstanding any fee or admission charge imposed for pets, require
>> that a person with a disability or an assistance animal trainer pay a fee
>> or
>> admission charge for an assistance animal or assistance animal trainee.
>> (3) A place of public accommodation
>> or of access to state government services, programs or activities
>> may:
>> (a) Ask whether an animal is required due to a disability; [ and ]
>> (b) Ask about the nature of the
>> work or task that an animal is trained to do or perform or is being
>> trained
>> to do or perform, unless it is readily apparent that the animal performs
>> or
>> is being trained to perform work or a task for the benefit of a person
>> with
>> a disability[ .
>> ]
>> ; and
>> (c) If the place is a food establishment or restaurant, require proof
>> that
>> the animal has a valid assistance animal tag issued under section 2 of
>> this
>> 2015 Act.
>> (4) If a place of public accommodation or of access to state government
>> services, programs or activities customarily charges a person for damages
>> that the person causes to the place, the place may charge a person with a
>> disability or an assistance animal trainer for damages that an assistance
>> animal or assistance animal trainee causes to the place.
>> (5) A person with a
>> disability or an assistance animal trainer must maintain control of an
>> as-
>> sistance animal or assistance animal trainee. Except as provided in this
>> subsection, control shall be exerted by means of a harness, leash or
>> other
>> tether.
>> If the use of a harness, leash or other tether would interfere with the
>> ability of the animal to do the work or perform the tasks for which the
>> animal is trained or is being trained, control may be exerted by the
>> effective use of voice commands, signals or other means. If an animal is
>> not
>> under control as required in this subsection, a place of public
>> accommodation or of access to state government services, programs or
>> activities may con- sider the animal to be out of control for purposes of
>> subsection (6) of this section.
>> (6)(a) Except as provided in this subsection, a place of public
>> accommodation or of access to state government services, programs or
>> activities may not deny a person with a disability or an assistance
>> animal
>> trainer the right to be accompanied by an assistance animal or assistance
>> animal [3]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/annedie%40nycap.rr.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/dhanks%40dudley-hanks.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/marianne%40denningweb.com
>>
>
>
> --
> Marianne Denning, TVI, MA
> Teacher of students who are blind or visually impaired
> (513) 607-6053
>
>

-- 
Marianne Denning, TVI, MA
Teacher of students who are blind or visually impaired
(513) 607-6053