[nagdu] Oregon's proposal

Sat Mar 7 19:00:47 UTC 2015

I'm glad you have had such good luck, others have had more difficulties.

A friend of mine was in a department store and was looking for an elevator.

He was feeling along the wall trying to find the button.  Unfortunately, the store had erected a rather flimsy china display very close to where the elevator buttons were situated.

As my friend moved to his left, he pushed his Guide over, edging it closer and closer to the display.

Then, when the dog was pushed up against the display that my friend was unaware of, it tried to back out and get itself clear.

The harness snagged, and the display toppled.

Given the proposed legislation, would my friend be responsible for the cost of all that broken china?

Just because you have not experienced one of the harsh realities that this kind of legislation can impose, it does not follow that there is no problem.

As noted before, I have experienced situations in which curious or mean-spirited members of the public have caused my Guide to experience more than its share of stress.  It does follow that, when an animal is placed in that situation, there is a possibility that it can react in a way that some damage can result, regardless of how well it is trained or how even its temperament is.  

I do not feel it is right or just that blind dog handlers should bear the cost at those times.

Regards,
Dudley, with Michener

-----Original Message-----
From: Marianne Denning [mailto:marianne at denningweb.com] 
Sent: March-07-15 9:32 AM
To: Dudley Hanks
Cc: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Oregon's proposal

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