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

[Wayne & Harley]

*Hello Ms. Ledet,
The answer is simple really, the X's are spacers. To delineate between 
the text of the bill and my comments.


*On 3/9/2017 7:57 PM, Danielle Ledet via NAGDU wrote:
> Nice, but what is with all the XXXXXX?
>
> On 2/20/17, Cindy Ray via NAGDU <nagdu at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>> I think the message is really good. However, its length concerns me. Would
>> it be better to send a letter talking about one's own personal experiences
>> firs and attach something like this? I suspect the rep will not read that
>> whole piece, though it is excellent.
>> Cindy Lou Ray
>> cindyray at gmail.com
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NAGDU [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tracy Carcione
>> via NAGDU
>> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 8:33 AM
>> To: 'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
>> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
>> Cc: Tracy Carcione <carcione at access.net>
>> Subject: Re: [NAGDU] {Spam?} My response to Representative Manley's HB3162
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/cindyray%40gmail.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/singingmywayin%40gmail.com
>>
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus