[NAGDU] [Blindtlk] DOT Releases Interim Enforcement Priorities concerning Service Animals and ESAs

Fri May 18 20:04:58 UTC 2018

Marion,

My reactions to the interim plan are:

1.  Yes, restrictions are needed regarding behavior of untrained (working) PSA and ESA.   This is good.
2.  The same, obviously, for fake PSA and ESA.

-In both cases, I agree that a vet cannot be the informed certifier, because they only know the animal in a very limited context.  And we all know that vet offices can have any number of effects (including extreme) on animal behavior, such it may be far from any context of actual familiarity.  

Proof of training absolutely should be required.  But there’s the tangle.  Many of us know about problems with one agency that appears to have co-opted what defines an “acceptable training program” identity in other countries, even to the point that it may prohibit travel unless you have a dog through that agency of one of it’s affiliates.  It has prohibited us before.  That, for all of it’s good intention, is a definition of discrimination.  So what in the end of this process, defines “trained”?   Clear and simple, it one thing:  real time behavior.

My other concern about proof of training, is, what prevents just one more layer of marketing, the sale and purchase of a bogus internet “I am trained” certificate?

3. This brings me to the essential requirement:  Agencies and staff, from TSA to airline counter and boarding employees and air crews, need to have training, to immediately discern in real time, case by case, that an animal’s behavior is that of a working, trained animal.  There is no way around this.  Imagine how things might change if, when a boarding agent observes an untrained animal in the act six bodies back in line barking or snarling at someone in line, they can judge the situation and handle it?  This means however, the three things that organizations don’t want:  education, inconvenience in the present moment, and the expense to make it possible.  But it is the only real thing that will actually work in the way that policies and certifications cannot.  

4.  The proposal needs teeth, in the form of boundaries and consequences.   The boundaries, as mentioned, reside in being observed acting trained or untrained.  Consequences must include the owner personally certifying responsibility for their trained animal’s behavior.  Having to submit to giving one's signature below a warning of consequences or penalties does remarkable things for effect.   Unless sociopathic, one who must certify personal responsibility for behavior or damage will consider twice whether to fudge a rule, or outright lie about their dog.  Imagine this in a rubber hits the road way:  What wold you do if security came and said “Either your working dog behaves like one, or it goes in freight, or you are free to board this aircraft today but without the animal”?   

An additional point on imposing consequences:  We are a body of people who use working dogs, and have been inputting on this process over time.  Some of us have been at the effect of untrained or fake dog abuses.  Therefore the federal law outlining consequences for interrupting a service dog’s work, or harming a service dog should be part of the text of certifying personal responsibility for PSA or ESA.  If that’s a discrimination issue, I personally would have no issue in signing responsibility for my own working guide.  After all, we already have to adhere to this same standard anyway; so what would be an issue as individuals or a discrimination to us to state what already is our obvious behavior and responsibility as teams?

Thanks for the good work!  Marion I wasn’t clear.  There will be a group input process through you as I understand it.  But would it would be more effective still if we also wrote as individuals as well?  Please clarify.

My best,
Peter

On May 16, 2018, at 5:40 PM, NAGDU President via blindtlk <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> 
> 
>                Earlier today, the United States Department of
> Transportation released interim enforcement priorities for the Air Carrier
> Access Act (ACAA) concerning the carriage of service animals and emotional
> support animals in the aircraft cabin. I sent a previous message with those
> priorities and promised to comment on them after I had the opportunity to
> review them. It is important to understand that, as the title of the
> attached document states, these are interim enforcement policies, meaning
> they are meant to communicate where the Department will temporarily focus
> its enforcement resources. The release of this document provides the public
> with 15 days to make comments, after which the Department will issue final
> enforcement priorities. In addition, this document also provides information
> about an advance notice of proposed rule making (ANPRM) which is intended to
> advise the public about the implementing regulations the Department intends
> to institute. The public has an opportunity to comment on the ANPRM. Once
> the comment period ends, the Department will then issue a notice of proposed
> rule making and afford another opportunity for public comment. Once this
> comment period closes, the Department will issue its implementing
> regulations. The instructions for filing comments are contained in the
> attached document and will be provided in each subsequent document. It is
> important to note the docket numbers for comments in order to be sure your
> input is considered. The National Federation of the Blind and its special
> interest division, the National Association of Guide Dog Users, will create
> a coordinated comment on each of these items.
> 
> 
> 
>                So, what are the enforcement priorities of the Department of
> Transportation as they pertain to service animals? Here are some direct
> excerpts from this document:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.       Requiring advance notice for service animals.violates the
> Department's regulation and may significantly harm passengers with
> disabilities as it prevents them from making last minute travel plans that
> may be necessary for work or family emergencies;
> 
> 2.       The Department's service animal regulation requires airlines to
> accept the following as proof of a service animal's status: identification
> cards, other written documentation, presence of harnesses, tags, or the
> credible verbal assurances of a qualified individual with a disability using
> the animal. 14 CFR 382.117(d); 
> 
> 3.       the Enforcement Office intends to act should an airline require
> that a passenger with a service animal check-in at the ticket counter,
> thereby denying those passengers the same benefits that are available to
> other passengers; 
> 
> 4.       carriers may refuse transportation to any service animal that
> displays behavior evidencing a lack of training in a public space;
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to encourage everyone to read the attached document and invite
> a discussion of these enforcement priorities. As previously stated, the
> National Federation of the Blind and the National Asociation of Guide Dog
> Users will craft a coordinated comment on this enforcement priority and the
> advance notice of proposed rule making. We need to hear from you so that
> these comments reflect the wishes and interests of our members. A discussion
> on our lists is encouraged to help everyone process and understand these
> priorities; however, please send comments for consideration to me directly
> to
> 
> 
> 
> president at nagdu.org
> 
> 
> 
>        Finally, in the very near future, I will CREATE A commentary
> specifically on the ANPRM AND INVITE discussion on it. I appreciate the
> incredible energy and advocacy of our membership and look forward to seeing
> many of you at our fabulous convention in July!
> 
> 
> 
> Fraternally yours,
> 
> Marion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Gwizdala, President
> 
> National Association of Guide Dog Users Inc. (NAGDU)
> 
> National Federation of the Blind
> 
> (813) 626-2789
> 
> President at NAGDU.ORG
> 
> Visit our website <http://nagdu.org/> 
> 
> Follow us on Twitter <http://twitter.com/nagdu> 
> 
> The National Federation of the Blind knows that blindness is not the
> characteristic that defines you or your future. Every day we raise
> expectations because low expectations create barriers between blind  people
> and our dreams. You can live the life you want! Blindness is not what holds
> you back.
> 
> 
> 
> <DOT Interim Enforcement Priorities.pdf>_______________________________________________
> blindtlk mailing list
> blindtlk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for blindtlk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/pwolf1%40wolfskills.com