[nagdu] where to buy guide dog harnesses

[Ken Ace]

Julie,
Thank you so much for your very profound response. You certainly gave me a
lot to think about and this type of discussion is what makes this venue so
valuable.
This is off the subject but please bear with me. As an example we have a
problem in our country just now about passing a law about background checks
before purchasing a gun.
The problem is that people are concerned about the government having a
record of their purchase of a gun and if so could at some time in the future
use that to collect those same guns. But if, for instance, they had a
background check as part of, let's say getting a driver's license, with a
special mark, then they could buy a gun without the government knowing they
had one. That would pass in a minute. So what I am saying is I agree with
everything you said but there should be an alternative way to keep people
with legitimate reasons for service animals not be infringed on by people
who would abuse the privilege. But perhaps it isn't the problem I think it
is and I should direct my energy to other, more important problems.
Thanks for your comments and time.
Ken & Ace

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Julie J.
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 7:58 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] where to buy guide dog harnesses

Ken,

I think perhaps I came off to abrupt.  I didn't mean to, so let me start
over.

I work for the government.  I know how slowly things work.  Sometimes
decisions make no sense at all, unless you are a lawyer. *smile*

I feel that if blind people had to be certified as blind  to be able to
purchase goods or receive any sort of service, there would be loads of
delays, mistakes and decisions that made no sense.  I think the best person
to make decisions about what I need is me.

Even the Commission for the Blind here in Nebraska doesn't require that a
person is legally blind to qualify for services.  The requirement is that
the degree of vision loss is so severe as to affect the person's ability to
perform daily tasks.  At first that seems like it would be too broad and
create more problems.  In reality I think it has been a really great thing.

I can think of two people off the top of my head who are not legally blind,
but use guide dogs.  One lady has some sort of muscle issue where her
eyelids close unexpectedly and for a long time.  If she didn't have
alternative skills and tools, she'd be in a tough spot.  the other lady has
a visual processing issue.  She sees fine, but her brain doesn't know what
to do with the information, making it not so useful.

If the government decided who was blind and worthy of having access to
tools, would these two ladies be on the list?  I'd hope so, but given the
long history of beurocratic red tape, I don't have much hope.  With no
restrictions on the purchase of blindness products these ladies are able to
get what they need, be employed and live in their own homes alone.

I can't think of a single story of a sighted person faking being blind by
carrying around a white cane.  I have heard of more stories of people
passing off their pets as service dogs.  Very rarely do people fake having a
guide dog though.  Usually if they want to take Fifi on vacation with them
they say the dog is some other sort of service dog for some invisible
disability.  It's much easier to fake having a seizure disorder and the dog
alerts to impending seizures.  Guide dogs have pretty specific training that
is fairly readily apparent to the average person on the street.  that isn't
so with other disability related service dogs.

The ADA doesn't distinguish between the various types of service dogs,
except to give examples.  The laws are exactly the same for all people with
all types of disabilities who use service dogs.  If we had to have some sort
of certification of blindness, then there would also have to be
certifications for other disabilities.  That creates an entirely new and
exciting buffet of complications.

I do agree that people passing pets as service dogs is a problem.  However I
don't believe that more regulations is the answer.  the law requires that
dogs be individually trained to mitigate the handlers disability.  The law
also is clear that the dog has to have manners and be under the handler's
control.  I think the better approach is to educate business owners about
their rights.  If a dog is barking, jumping on other customers or peeing on
the potted plants, it is time for the handler to take the dog home.

I have owner trained all of my guides.  They have not been of the typical 
breeds and they do not wear the customary leather harness.   I do not have 
one of the ID cards the schools give out.  I have only had one very minor
access issue, which was cleared up quickly.  I attribute this to the
excellent behavior of my dogs, where I live and good luck. I am very open
about the fact that I owner train my dogs.  Many of the people in my
community know that I train my guides.  I have never had any access issue of
any variety because I owner train.

If I had to be certified by some government agency 14 states away, would I
still be able to train my own guides?  Or what if I wanted to hire a trainer
to privately train a dog for me, would there be regulations on that?  It
scares me to think about the freedom and choices I might have to give up.

Preventing fraud is a good thing.  Punishing the innocent bystanders in the
process is not so good.

I hope that helps to clarify my position some.  And please feel free to
disagree with me.  I actually appreciate hearing other viewpoints.  It helps
me to get clear on why exactly I believe what I do.  Healthy debate is a
good thing!

Julie


_______________________________________________
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/ken%40acenovels.com