[nagdu] June, 1991 Dog World article about the California State Board

[Ed and Toni Eames]

Hi folks,

Things don't change much, do they!

Ed and Toni
                                                      California State Board
                                                        Ed and Toni Eames

      In an article called "Toni and Her Golden 
Girls," (Dog World December 1988) Ed described 
Toni's decision to purchase Ivy, a golden 
retriever, and pay a former guide dog trainer to prepare
her to be Toni's future guide.  Many 
considerations went into Toni's decision to 
select this option rather than attend a guide dog 
school where there would be no charge for the dog and
training.  As a resident of New York State, her 
choice was not hampered by legal 
restraints.  Ivy, an exemplary guide dog, has 
been Toni's guide and companion for the past seven years.  Little
did we know when we moved to California that 
Ivy's right to continue to guide Toni might be 
challenged by proposed legislative recommendations.
      California is the only state with a 
government agency controlling guide dog 
activities.  Established more than forty years 
ago, this agency, known as the California State Board of
Guide Dogs for the Blind, was a response to the 
proliferation of guide dog organizations emerging 
to provide services to blinded World War II 
veterans.  While the Board was effective in 
eliminating many of these bogus organizations, a 
similar "shaking down" process took place in the 
rest of the country without the establishment of 
a government agency.  Presently, the seven-member 
Board, only two of whom are guide dog users, is 
part of the Department of Consumer 
Affairs.  However, the Board seems less concerned 
with securing the rights of blind people than in 
preserving the power of the three California guide dog schools.
      In 1989, the Board was empowered by the 
state legislature to conduct a year-long study, 
including holding public hearings, to develop 
recommendations about the future of assistance 
dogs in California.  Assistance dogs include 
guide dogs partnered with blind people, hearing 
dogs partnered with deaf people and service dogs 
partnered with physically disabled people.
      Although the Board held nine public 
hearings throughout the state, very few disabled 
people were informed of them.  Even fewer were 
aware of the mission of the Board.  On the other
hand, representatives of the three guide dog 
schools, Guide Dogs for the Blind, San Rafael, 
International Guiding Eyes, Sylmar, and Guide 
Dogs of the Desert, Palm Springs, presented their 
views at most of the meetings.  Representatives 
of the other assistance dog providers, Canine 
Companions for Independence, Santa Rosa and 
Rancho Santa Fe, The San Francisco SPCA Hearing 
Dog Program and the Mary Ann Salem Companion Animal Program for the Deaf,
Riverside Humane Society, presented testimony at 
some of the public hearings.  Representatives of 
bus driver unions, the restaurant industry and other businesses presented their
concerns.
      After concluding the study, the Board 
prepared a preliminary document summarizing the 
results and suggesting changes in the current law 
and in the Board's status.  Major points 
developed in this document called for the 
expansion of the Board into an eleven member 
Board of Assistance Dogs for the Disabled 
including service and hearing dog users.  It 
further suggested extending licensing to hearing 
and service dog trainers and programs, outlawing 
privately trained assistance dogs, placing 
residential training options entirely in the hands of the guide dog schools
and requiring an identification card for all school graduates.
      It was at this stage we began our 
discussions with representatives of the 
Board.  As the co chairpersons of the Guide Dog 
Committee of the National Federation of the Blind 
of California, we were concerned about the 
Board's legislative recommendations.  The 
National Federation of the Blind is the largest 
organization of blind consumers in the country 
and is a constant advocate for consumer rights at 
the local, state and national levels.  After 
reading the preliminary report with great care, 
we responded by suggesting a wide range of 
changes in the Board's approach.  In addition, 
the three service and hearing dog programs 
developed statements opposing the Board's attempt to impose licensing on them.
      On June 30, 1990 the Board presented its 
final report to Senator Milton Marks, 
Chairperson, Senate Subcommittee on the Rights of 
the Disabled.  It was obvious from this 22-page 
document, the Board was not interested in 
consumer input or the opinions of the three 
unlicensed California assistance dog 
providers.  One of the few changes made was the 
abandonment of what came to be known as the "visa 
program."  This was the requirement that out of 
state assistance dog users apply to the Board for 
a temporary identification card at least 30 days 
before visiting the state.  In almost all other 
respects, the final recommendations remained unchanged.
      Dismayed at the Board's unresponsiveness to 
our suggestions and those of many other 
organizations, we wrote the following letter to 
Senator Marks on August 9, 1990:
      "For years, blind people have been 
struggling for autonomy and independence.  We 
believe the Board is destructive of this 
goal.  It is custodial and paternalistic and wants to assume the
responsibilities, which we, as blind people, 
should assume.  It now wants to extend its 
custodial stance to deaf and physically disabled 
people.  The Board should not be expanded­it should be
abolished.  It is regulating an industry, which, 
by the Board's own admission, does not need 
regulation.  No other state has such a regulatory 
agency.  The National Federation of the Blind
contends it is a waste of taxpayers' money.  This 
money would be better spent on developing 
employment opportunities for disabled people or 
improving library services for us.
      An increase in the Board's membership and 
the assumption of the responsibility for 
licensing signal and service dog programs and 
trainers would only increase the budgetary needs of the
Board.  It [the Board] will place barriers in the 
way of developing new and innovative assistance dog training programs.
      After stating several times in the report 
there is no evidence of poor training or abusive 
fund raising by existing hearing and service dog 
training programs, the report concludes:
"The licensing of assistance dog programs will be 
possible and beneficial." Who will benefit?  We 
do not believe we, the consumers, or the public 
will benefit from a licensing program. Obviously, 
the two major hearing dog providers in California 
do not believe they will benefit either.  We 
wonder where the "substantial community support for licensing" comes from.
      Members of the assistance dog using 
community had little knowledge of the purpose of 
the public hearings nor were their views sought.
      As guide dog users, we object to several 
specific recommendations, which will have a 
direct and detrimental impact on us.  These are:
      1.  Home training will only be available to 
those who have gone through a four-week guide dog 
training program at a licensed California 
school.  The schools will determine who is 
eligible.  This recommendation disregards the 
track record of Fidelco Guide Dog Foundation in 
Connecticut, which has successfully been training 
first time guide dog users at home for several 
years.   Fidelco is the fastest growing guide dog 
program in the country based on consumer 
demand.  An innovative program, like Fidelco's, 
would not be permitted in California.  In addition, the right to
extend this form of training to alumni is placed 
squarely in the hands of the schools.  No 
guidelines are set forth.  No definition of 
"necessary conditions" for home training is 
provided.  No power is given the blind consumer 
who wants to challenge denial by a guide dog 
school of a request for at home training.
      2. No opportunity is provided to certify a 
privately trained assistance dog.  The Board 
notes that the vast majority of disabled people 
cannot afford such training.  We agree, but does
this mean the small minority who want and can 
afford it should be denied the opportunity?  We 
think not.  Toni's guide dog, Ivy, was privately 
trained and, if the Board's recommendations are
translated into law, Ivy will become illegal and 
lose access rights.  In addition, many hearing 
and service dogs have been trained by deaf and 
physically disabled owner/trainers.  No evidence, 
other than rumor and hearsay, has been provided 
by the Board to suggest privately trained dogs do 
not measure up to licensed school standards.
      3. Licensed trainers who are no longer 
employed by a licensed school lose their rights 
to train assistance dogs.  Such a recommendation, 
if accepted, gives monopolistic power to the 
schools and deprives consumers of the services of 
experienced licensed trainers.  It is the 
equivalent of a physician who can only practice 
medicine at a hospital; private practice would be 
illegal.  Once again, the Board is operating in a 
custodial fashion and is giving more and more power to the schools.
      Several issues are raised in the report, 
which are never dealt with or are misperceptions 
of reality.  We do not believe an identification 
program is a solution to our problems of public
access.  The taxi driver in San Francisco who 
drove off as we and our guide dogs were getting 
into his taxi couldn't care less about whether or 
not we, or our guide dogs, had identification.
Managers of restaurants, apartment complexes or 
hotels who refuse to read the copy of the law we 
always carry with us would not be impressed by a 
fancy identification card.  Although the issue of 
public safety is raised several times, nowhere in 
the recommendations is this issue addressed.  It 
is assumed if all assistance dogs in the state are trained by licensed training
programs, the public will be protected.
      For purposes of legal access and 
identification, the Board suggests the 
recognition of assistance dogs graduated from out 
of state training schools considered to be "substantially
equivalent" to California licensed 
programs.  Since currently there are fifty such 
programs in the other forty-nine states, how is 
the Board going to determine which of these is "substantially
equivalent?"  Are members of the Board, at our 
expense, going to travel throughout the country 
to investigate and evaluate these programs?  Will 
it be necessary to hire new staff members to
carry out these duties?  If all out of state 
programs are accepted as "substantially 
equivalent," as we suspect they will be, then 
licensing has no value.  If non-licensed 
assistance dog training programs are accepted as 
"substantially equivalent" to California licensed 
programs, then why should we, as taxpayers, have 
to assume the financial burden of an unnecessary licensing Board?
      As you can see, we believe the results of 
the year-long study and series of public hearings 
have many negative implications for those of us 
who are assistance dog users.  We strongly urge 
you to disregard the recommendations of the Board 
and move for its abolition.  We do not need 
regulatory boards which regulate us rather than 
the industry they are supposed to control."
      On the afternoon of November 15, 1990 a 
public hearing was conducted by Senator Marks in 
Sacramento.  In order to testify, we had to take 
a 7 A.M. Amtrak train from Fresno to Stockton and 
transferred to an Amtrak bus to Sacramento.  Our 
bus driver was an obvious dog lover.  When we 
asked her about getting to the capitol from the 
bus depot, she whispered to stay on the
bus and she would drop us at our 
destination.  Before the hearing began, Ed had 
the pleasure of indulging in the food delights 
sold by the food vendors surrounding the capitol 
plaza.  Toni, who had just begun her Jenny Craig 
weight loss program, did not indulge.
      During the three-hour session, more than 
fifty people presented their views of the Board's 
proposal.  Every disabled person who spoke 
attacked one or more elements of the Board's
suggestions.
      Toni criticized the proposed ban on private 
training and the de-licensing of trainers who no 
longer work for licensed schools.  Ed criticized 
the Board on several points, including its proposal
to give the existing schools more power, its 
avoidance of any description of how the Board 
would determine which non California assistance 
dog programs were "substantially equivalent" to
California licensed schools and the Board's 
inability to deal with our current problems of denial of access rights.
      Representatives of the Hearing Society, the 
San Francisco Lighthouse, the Blinded Veterans 
Association and even the American Kennel Club 
spoke out against the proposed 
recommendations.  Testimony presented by 
representatives of Canine Companions for 
Independence and the San Francisco SPCA Hearing 
Dog Program attacked the Board's demand they 
should be licensed.  In fact, one of the major 
themes dominating the hearing was the 
interpretation of the recommendations as an 
attack on the rights of disabled people to choose 
the kind of training they desired.
      Only two individuals who spoke endorsed the 
Board's proposals.   They represented Guide Dogs 
for the Blind and International Guiding Eyes.
      Since the hearing, we have been working to 
eliminate the Board and its 
recommendations.  More than forty individuals 
have written to Senator Marks testifying to Ivy's competence as Toni's
guide.  We have become engaged in the political 
process in order to abolish the Board and have 
discovered something quite interesting.  Despite 
a projected California budgetary deficit of
several billion dollars, no legislator is willing 
to propose a bill to abolish the Board and save 
California taxpayers $100,000 a 
year.  Apparently, once a government agency is in place,
legislators will not remove it no matter how ineffective or even harmful.
      For those of you who want to help in this 
political battle, we suggest you write to 
Governor Pete Wilson, State Capitol, Sacramento, 
CA 95814.  Please send copies of your letters to 
Ed and Toni Eames, 3376 North Wishon, Fresno, CA 93704; Tel. 559-224-0544.