[NAGDU] Service dog license

Sun Feb 12 19:12:34 UTC 2017

Hi, Julie, Nancy, and Everyone,

Julie did a very good job of explaining some of the reasons why service dog
certification is not a good idea. In addition, I think the major deficiency
of such a scheme is that it would in no way solve the problem of "fake"
service dogs, which is supposedly the primary reason for certification. As
Julie mentioned, doctors do not know the difference between service dogs for
persons with disabilities, emotional support dogs, and social or companion
dogs, any more than do other members of the general public. And they do not
know the differences between the access provided by the ADA, the ACAA, and
the Fair Housing Act. In fact, many persons with disabilities are not clear
about these distinctions. Nevertheless, many doctors are very willing to
give people letters stating that the person needs or would benefit from a
dog or other animal. The doctors do not know or specify that the animal must
be individually trained to perform tasks to mitigate the individual person's
disability in order to qualify for access to places of public accommodation.
Furthermore, service animal patches, vests, and identification cards or
certificates are readily available from websites or can be made by
individuals themselves. Would business owners be expected to check the
individual's service dog licence against a list of "approved" providers or
look the person up in a database of eligible individuals with disabilities
before permitting the person to access the place of business or public
accommodation? If so, both businesspersons and many service animal users
would find this type of law not only burdensome, but also an invasion of
privacy and an infringement on our freedom of access to public
accommodations. In short, such a scheme is unworkable and antidemocratic,
and does nothing to solve the perceived problem of "fake" service dogs.

Nancy, I too applaud your openness to informing yourself about the issues
surrounding the topic of certification of service animals before forming
your own opinion on the matter. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to
think out loud and bounce these ideas around among those who would be most
affected by such laws.

Ann

-----Original Message-----
From: NAGDU [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Julie Johnson via
NAGDU
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2017 5:23 AM
To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Cc: Julie Johnson
Subject: Re: [NAGDU] Service dog license

Nancy,

I appreciate your sincerity in wanting to address the situation.  I am also
glad you are open to learning why this might or might not work.

First, who decides what programs are accredited?  The programs themselves? 
The government?  Some other organization?  Who pays for this?   There is no 
single accreditation entity for all guide, service, hearing, diabetic,
psychiatric dog programs.  Would some of the programs be accredited and
other types of disabilities would be out of luck?

Currently the laws in the U.S. state that a dog has to be individually
trained to mitigate the handler's disability.  There is no mention of a
program needing to do this training or the person needing to prove their
disability.  In order to have an ID of some variety, you would not only need
to list the dog, but the person would need to prove their disability.  As
blind people we don't really find this to be a problem, but what about other
disabilities.  I'm thinking those with a strong social bias like dogs who do

psychiatric tasks or seizure alert.   Who decides what is a disability? 
Currently people self identify and in the case of a legal situation a judge
decides if a disability is in fact present.  If we had to have ID's there is
going to be a seriously long line for disability confirmations.  I have had
it proposed that doctor's be the contact to determine disability and I think
this is a very bad idea.  Doctor's understand the medical aspects of disease
and disability, but they do not understand the legal side of the issue,
which is what is needed in this situation.

Then we get to the people who do not go through a program for their dogs. 
When it comes to programs for guide dogs, blind people have it made.  We
have a wide selection of very low cost options with not too bad waiting
lists.  That is not the case with every other type of disability.  The
number of programs compared to the number of applicants is low, making for
long waiting lists.  Frequently these programs charge large sums of money,
in the thousands or tens of thousands, for their dogs.  This means there are
a large number of people with disabilities that choose to owner train or
have a dog privately trained faster and for less money.  This also allows
for a greater flexibility in what training is provided, making the owner
trained dog much more customized to the owners particular disability needs. 
So who accredits these folks?

Then we get to the part that irritates me the most about the ID issue, well
one of the parts anyway.  Why would the entire program be accredited instead
of each individual team?  That feels like we are giving the program a free
pass to slide through some dogs who are a little rough around the edges. 
We've all encountered program dogs who were not pleasant and the handler
couldn't or wouldn't do something to address the situation.  If we are going
to do this ID thing, then folks who owner train and those who have program
dogs must be treated equally.

I also agree wholeheartedly with Daryl about what she said about when a
driver's license is shown vs. when this dog ID would be shown.  A Driver's
License is never a condition of access.  You aren't asked for it when
entering the grocery store, when you get in the car or when you sit down in
the restaurant.  It can be used as proof of age or residency, but never as a
condition of public access.  Requiring a different standard of community
access for disabled people is highly discriminatory.

And yes, I owner train my dogs or in the case of the last one, had her
privately trained.  I'm very happy with that choice and don't see myself
changing anytime soon.

Julie
Courage to Dare: A Blind Woman's Quest to Train her Own Guide Dog
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QXZSMOC
-----Original Message-----
From: Daryl via NAGDU
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 10:53 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Cc: Daryl
Subject: Re: [NAGDU] Service dog license

I can't speak for anybody else, but as for myself I have big problems with
such an idea. It makes people with disabilities who use service dogs targets
for anybody who wants to see identifiable information. Yes, to drive a car
you need a license. But you are only requested for that license if you are
driving erratically. Also, if a person chooses to owner train their dog, or
if they're disability makes owner training the only viable option, they are
at a distinct disadvantage.

On February 11, 2017 9:46:58 PM MST, Nancy VanderBrink via NAGDU
<nagdu at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>Hey guys,
>So I'm going to make you mad at me but I don't understandsomething...
>
>If you have to get a license to drive why not one for a guide dog.
>I know that people who were glasses are supposed to have their picture 
>taken with her glasses on and I guess I wonder why he could not be 
>something like that but for us with our dog?
>
>I know figuring out how to come up with some sort of database of 
>accredited schools and then how to figure out how to make sure these 
>places are accredited would be a process but I guess I kind of wonder 
>if having it on something that already exists and is already official 
>wouldn't that make it easier?
>
>I mean, if I have to go get a new ID when I move wouldn't it make sense 
>to just go get a new ID with your picture of you and your partner in it 
>that way?
>
>I'm not trying to ignite a fire storm or anything I just don't really 
>understand why this is such a big deal. I understand the need for 
>privacy but I'm not even really saying that you have to say on there 
>why you have the dog I guess I really just kind of would think that if 
>they could get accredited schools in a database and then the DMV could 
>choose the school you went to given on some sort  of letter or 
>something, why is that bad???
>
>Just trying to understand.
>
>vandyvanderbrink at outlook.com
>Sent from my iPhone
>_______________________________________________
>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/crazymusician%40shaw
>.ca

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
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/julielj%40neb.rr.com

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2265 / Virus Database: 4365/13429 - Release Date: 02/11/17 

_______________________________________________
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