[NAGDU] WAS: Wayne And Harlye. IS: A longer explanation
Lisa Belville
missktlab1217 at frontier.com
Tue May 23 18:24:12 UTC 2017
Hi, Wayne.
I live in Southern IL and I had no clue this was going on. Is there some
organized IL Guide Dog or potential NAGDU division here? We're so spread
out that it's hard to really get anything done here, but thought I'd ask
anyway.
Lisa Belville
missktlab1217 at frontier.com
I'm great at multi-tasking. I can waste time, be unproductive, and
procrastinate all at once.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne & Harley via NAGDU" <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
To: "NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users"
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Cc: "Wayne & Harley" <k9dad at k9di.org>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 10:50 PM
Subject: [NAGDU] WAS: Wayne And Harlye. IS: A longer explanation
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/missktlab1217%40frontier.com
>
More information about the NAGDU
mailing list