[NAGDU] {Spam?} My response to Representative Manley's HB3162

[Tracy Carcione]

Good job, Wayne!  Well reasoned, and a detailed analysis of the problems with the proposed bill.
Tracy


-----Original Message-----
From: NAGDU [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Wayne & Harley via NAGDU
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 9:53 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Cc: Wayne & Harley
Subject: [NAGDU] {Spam?} My response to Representative Manley's HB3162

*Below is my response to Representative Manley's HB3162.*

*XXXXX*

Hello Ms. Manley,

I am a Guide Dog Owner and I am writing in response to a bill proposed by you HB3162 as a concerned Illinois citizen whose life would be directly, and negatively impacted if this bill passes and the illegal provisions it contains that violate the Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA) are signed into Illinois law.

My comments will focus on:
a.) The choice of the state agency  The Illinois Department Of Financial And Professional Regulation, Division Of Professional Regulation ( The IDFPR/DPR ) that would be tasked with implementation of the provisions of this bill if it were to become Illinois law.
b.) The unenforceable nature of most of the requirements within the bill.
c.) Standards, I will explain why one single standard does not, nor cannot apply to all Service Dog Modalities.
d.) Whether, or not spay/neuter should be mandatory.

     Ma’am, the fact that HB3162 is identical, or nearly so, to the 2016
HB5807 previously proposed by you, makes it crystal clear that you have chosen to ignore the input provided to you by the very Illinois citizens this bill would negatively impact the most, namely Service Dog Owners. I will intersperse my comments among the provisions of the bill.

Let’s consider, Ms. Manley, your choice of agency to implement the 
provisions of the bill.   IDFPR regulates nearly three hundred types of 
professions, professional entities and professionals that work in those professions. Why task the agency with licensing and regulating Service Dogs for the disabled when current State and Federal access laws already adequately address the issue?

The next question that I have for you is this. Who will fund this? 
Service Dog Owners?  A lot of Service Dog Owners have limited financial resources, this would add even more financial burden,  The next question that comes to mind is, what about Service Dog Teams that live in other states, or countries that visit, or travel through Illinois?

This bill, if passed, and signed into law would be unenforceable. The least restrictive law, in this case the ADA, would pertain, not state law.

With regards to the following provisions: “
      (1) the service dog respond to commands, which shall
    include basic obedience and skilled tasks from the client
    90% of the time on the first ask in all public and home
    Environments;”

XXXX

This provision is unenforceable in the home environment. This would constitute an unwarranted, and unreasonable invasion of the privacy of Service Dog Owners. Will IDFPR be tying up the Illinois court system to get search warrants to go into the homes of  Service Dog Owners to check if the Service Dog meets the ninety percent requirement in the home?  At home most Service Dogs are just that, dogs. They do get “down” time. 
  Ninety percent of first ask? Hmm, not a reasonable expectation, particularly for Guide Dogs. This is because Guide Dogs are taught to intelligently disobey in certain instances using “Intelligent Disobedience”.  if following the command/requestwould endanger the team. 
In other words,  a trained Guide Dog will not robotically follow the commands/requests of their blind owner.
XXXX

(2) the service dog demonstrate basic obedience skills
    by responding to voice and hand signals for sitting,
    staying in place, lying down, walking in a controlled
    position near the client, and coming to the client when
    Called;”

XXXX

Client? Did we take the TARDIS back in time to the 1930’s? Apparently, Ms. Manley, you are unaware of how patronizing, and paternalistic calling a Service Dog Owner a “client” is.  Not all Service Dog Owners work with program trained Service Dogs. Some, like myself,  choose to Owner Train our Service Dogs.

XXXX
       (3) the service dog meet all the standards as laid out
    in the Assistance Dogs International minimum standards for
    assistance dogs in public and be equally well behaved in
    the home;

XXXX


First of all Assistance Dog International’s (ADI’s) standards may be all well and good for most Service Dog Modalities, however, ADI itself chose to adopt the training standards and guidelines for Guide Dogs as promulgated by the International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF), thereby showing that ADI’s “One Size Fits All” approach to Service Dog training cannot be factual.
For example, Guide Dogs  need to, well, guide their owners, but say a Psychiatric Service Dog ( PSD ) would likely be expected to cover the approach to their owner’s back, or side.
In addition Guide Dogs are taught “Intelligent Disobedience” meaning that the Guide Dog  will refuse a command if following the command given will endanger the team. A classic example of this is at a street crossing.  The Guide Dog’s Owner gives a “forward” command, but because the dog sees a vehicle approaching, the dog “intelligently disobeys” by not following the command and stays put. Therefore the ninety percent obedience requirement cannot, logically, apply to Guide Dogs.
Again, as stated previously, the part about being equally well behaved in the home is unenforceable and for the same reasons stated above.


XXXX


        (4) the service dog be trained to perform at least 3
    tasks to mitigate the client's disability;

XXXX


Three tasks? The ADA sets a minimum of one task. What about Service Dogs that only perform one task like, say, Guide Dogs, Medical Alert Dogs and Seizure Response Dogs, to name a few mono-tasked Service Dogs?

My Guide Dog does one task, he guides me, and he does it very well. That is the only task that he does that directly relates to my disability that I need him to do. Training him to perform at least two other tasks, to meet ADI’s three task requirement would be useless as the other two tasks would not be, as required by the ADA, directly related to mitigating my disability

The three tasks requirement is counter to the ADA. The following is from the Service Dog FAQ’s released  by the United States Department Of Justice  ( the Federal agency responsible for promulgating regulations pertaining to the ADA ) released in 2015.

“Q1: What is a service animal?
A:  Under the ADA, a service animal is defined as a dog that has been individually trained to do  work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability.  The task(s) performed by the dog must be  directly related to the person’s disability.
  Q2: What does “do work or perform tasks” mean?
A:  The dog must be trained to take a specific action when needed to assist the person with a disability.  For example, a person with diabetes may have a dog that is trained to alert him when his  blood sugar reaches high or low levels.  A person with depression may have a dog that is trained  to remind her to take her medication.  Or, a person who has epilepsy may have a dog that is  trained to detect the onset of a seizure and then help the person remain safe during the seizure.”....

Ma’am, please read the above quote carefully, the three situations that the U.S.D.O.J. mention in the answer to Q2 all mention a Service Dog performing a single task.

More importantly to note, some tasks cannot be demonstrated without there first being an accompanying health crisis of the disabled owner.

XXXX
16(5) the service dog's identification be accomplished 17with a laminated identification card with a photograph or 18photographs and names of the dog and client;
19(6) in public, the service dog wear a cape, harness, 20backpack, or other similar piece of equipment or clothing 21with a logo that is clear, easy to read, and identifiable 22as assistance dogs;


XXXX

These two provisions are directly counter to the ADA. Below is a quote from the 2015 Service Dog FAQ’s released by the U.S.D.O.J. Question eight to be exact.

“ Q8: Do service animals have to wear a vest or patch or special harness 
identifying them as     service animals?
A:  No.  The ADA does not require service animals to wear a vest, ID tag, or specific harness.(I added the underlining for  emphasis WMS )

Requiring the laminated ID and the dog to wear a vest, cape, backpack, or harness would be unenforceable, again, due to the fact that the least restrictive law would pertain and a Service Dog Owner would and could claim protection under the ADA.

XXXX

(7) prior to placement, every service dog meet the
    Assistance Dog International Standards and Ethics
    regarding dogs, be spayed or neutered, and have current
    vaccination certificates as determined by the dog's




HB3162- 12 -LRB100 08038 SMS 18123 b

    veterinarian and applicable laws.


XXXX

Current vaccinations, I've no problem with that. The spayed  or neutered part, there I've got a bit of a problem. Yes, it is standard practice for every U.S. Guide Dog School to spay/neuter their Guide Dogs prior to placement with a person who is blind ( Usually sometime between when the puppy returns to the school at about twelve to fourteen months of age and when the pup is matched with their human at about eighteen to twenty four months ).

For a disabled Owner Trainer  though that is a personal choice for the Service Dog Owner Trainer to make in consultation with their veterinarian as to when, or if their Owner Trained Service Dog is spayed, or neutered. Especially in light of the mounting scientific evidence showing that early spay/neuter leads to health problems like a higher incidence of hip/elbow dysplasia. The delay of spay/neuter is particularly vital to Mobility Service Dogs. It isn't ethical to spay/neuter a dog that works in the Mobility Service modality until full physical growth is reached and all bone plates have closed, usually between 24 to 36 months.

Prior to placement? That may work for Service Dogs trained by programs, but what about disabled citizens, like myself, who choose to exercise our right to Owner Train their Service Dog themselves? Particularly if the Owner Trainer chooses to raise their future Service Dog from a puppy, as I have? I adopted Harley, my current Guide Dog when he was three months old, very much too young to neuter especially since he was a Service Dog Candidate.

ADI makes it nearly impossible for disabled Owner Trainers to have their Owner Trained Service Dogs evaluated by an ADI registered program. How will the state of Illinois protect the right of the disabled to train their own Service Dogs?

Ma’am, you do realize that there are no Guide Dog Schools within the borders of Illinois and very few, if any, programs that train Service Dogs for other Service Dog Modalities in Illinois? How would you propose that the state of Illinois convince  programs that operate completely outside of the borders of Illinois to follow these provisions if the bill were to be passed? How would the home states of say, The Seeing Eye ( New Jersey ), Guiding Eyes For The Blind ( New York ), Guide Dogs For The Blind ( California) and Leader Dogs For The Blind ( Michigan ) react to Illinois trying to compel these organizations to comply?

XXXX

General remarks:

This bill appears to be a clear attempt to discriminate against Service Dog Owners, invade their privacy, and legislate away the right of the disabled citizens of Illinois to choose to train their own Service Dog. 
Which is allowed under the ADA.

>From Question five in the Service Dog FAQ’s released in July 2015.

“Q5:Does the ADA require service animals to be professionally trained?
A: No. People with disabilities have the right to train the dog themselves and are not required to use a professional service dog training program.”

>From question six in the July 2015 Service Dog FAQ’s

“Q6:Are service-animals-in-training considered service animals under the ADA?
A: No. Under the ADA, the dog must already be trained before it can be taken into public places. However, some State or local laws cover animals that are still in training.”

Under the Illinois White Cane Law .

(775 ILCS 30/3) (from Ch. 23, par. 3363)

 1.

    “Every totally or partially blind or hearing impaired person, person
    who is subject to epilepsy or other seizure disorders, or person who
    has any other physical disability or a trainer of support dogs,
    guide dogs, seizure-alert dogs, seizure-response dogs, or hearing
    dogs shall have the right to be accompanied by a support dog or
    guide dog especially trained for the purpose, or a dog that is being
    trained to be a support dog, guide dog, seizure-alert dog,
    seizure-response dog, or hearing dog, in any of the places listed in
    this Section without being required to pay an extra charge for the
    guide, support, seizure-alert, seizure-response, or hearing dog;
    provided that he shall be liable for any damage done to the premises
    or facilities by such dog.
    (Source: P.A. 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)”

A few of the reasons that the preponderance of the Service Dog Owning community, outside of the Guide Dog Owning community that is, choose to Owner Train are.

 1.

    Cost: Some Non-Guide Service Dog training programs charge the
    disabled thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars for a Service
    Dog. The reason that I specifically stated Non-Guide Service Dog
    Training programs is that Guide Dog Schools charge a blind person
    only a nominal fee, or nothing because the Guide Dog schools are
    heavily funded by charitable contributions from the public. Programs
    for other Service Dog Modalities do not have that level of
    charitable contributions and therefore some choose to charge the
    disabled person who receives a Service Dog from them. Many disabled
    choose to Owner Train instead.

 2.

    Lack of a program that trains for their disability, or the
    combination of disabilities that a person may have. Not every
    disability has a corresponding program to train Service Dogs to
    mitigate it. Even if there is a program that will train a dog for
    one disability,  seizure response, for example, but the program does
    not have the resources to cross train their dogs to mitigate another
    disability that a person might have and needs their Service Dog to
    mitigate multiple disabilities.

 3.

    The level of bonding that the disabled Owner Trainer can achieve
    with a pup that the Owner Trainer raised/Owner Trained themselves.

One of the biggest problems that I see with regards to businesses allowing people faking a disability to bring their pet dog into their non-pet friendly business is lack of education of the business's, rights under the ADA to have any dog removed if it is not housebroken , or if the dog is out of its owner's control and the owner doesn't take effective action to regain control of the dog.  This applies to any dog, even a fully trained Service Dog.

In closing, HB3162 like your previous bill HB5807, was unenforceable from its very conception. Because, as I have stated previously, the least restrictive law that offers the Service Dog Owner the most protection applies.

if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via email at redacted at redacted.com <mailto:k9di at yahoo.com>, or via my mobile XXX-XXX-XXXX


Yours, Very Sincerely And Respectfully,



Wayne M. Scace



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
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/carcione%40access.net