[nagdu] Oregon's proposal

Sat Mar 7 19:59:23 UTC 2015

Dudley,
I see this in two different ways. First, no law should discount the
possibility of the mean-spirited public or the careless business owner,
which are all too common. Nevertheless, if my dog does something like grab
something off of a shelf, I take the responsibility of at least offering to
pay for it. I don't want a law telling me I have to do so, and I agree that
enforcing such a law would be a nightmare, again placing guide dog users in
a one-down position. But, for public relations, I believe it's good edicate
to offer to pay.

Also, I don't go in small stores like china and antique shops where the
aisles are small and disaster looms at every step. First of all, I don't
want my dog or myself to have a negative experience and I don't want to
break some shop-owner's posessions. As far as the ADA and aisle regulations
go, I'm not sure they apply to small shops. Many businesses in our area in
Pennsylvania seem to have been grand-fathered in and don't have wheelchair
ramps and accessible bathrooms, and I suspect aisle widths fall into that as
well. I don't think the ADA expects small businesses to totally redesign
their facility, if they've been there prior to the ADA.
Donna

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Dudley Hanks via
nagdu
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 2:01 PM
To: 'Marianne Denning'
Cc: 'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Oregon's proposal

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/HB3
>> 077/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-ha
>> nks.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%40denning
>> web.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

_______________________________________________
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/applebutterhill%40gmail.c
om