[NAGDU] WAS: Wayne And Harlye. IS: A longer explanation
Wayne & Harley
k9dad at k9di.org
Tue May 23 03:50:11 UTC 2017
Hello Heather, I'll go you one better Below is my response to Ms.
Manley, embedded in my response, is the bill. A bit of a long read, but,
I think, worth the time.
Wayne And Harley
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, or via my mobile XXX-XXX-XXXX
Yours, Very Sincerely And Respectfully,
Wayne M. Scace
On 5/22/2017 1:41 PM, Heather Bird via NAGDU wrote:
> Hi, Wane. Can you please give me a very brief explanation of
> the bill that you blocked, in layman's terms? I will go and research
> it later in more detail, but in case life gets crazy in the interim, I
> don't want to be completely unaware if I forget to follow up on that.
> Is it surrounding some certification process? Or, is it something to
> do with access in another way?
>
>
> On 5/20/2017 2:27 PM, Wayne & Harley via NAGDU wrote:
>> Hello Fellow NAGDU members,
>>
>> I am happy to report that it appears that the battle against HB3162
>> has been won, but the war continues.
>>
>> A group has been formed to forestall Ms. Manley from proposing a bill
>> like HB3162 again.
>>
>> We are using the Florida Statues as a model.
>>
>> I'll keep President Gwizdala, and this group apprised
>>
>>
>> ---
>> 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/heather.l.bird%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/k9dad%40k9di.org
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the NAGDU
mailing list