[NAGDU] WAS: Wayne And Harlye. IS: A longer explanation
Dan Weiner
dcwein at dcwein.cnc.net
Tue May 23 04:13:32 UTC 2017
Oh my , Wayne, that really does sound like it was a terrible piece of
proposed legislation, thank you and thanks to whomever else helped
defeat it, can you imagine, not only would it be unenforceable, but also
would constitute a major intrusion in to the lives of service dog users,
and so on.
Dan Weiner
dcwein at dcwein.cnc.net
On 5/22/2017 11:50 PM, Wayne & Harley via NAGDU wrote:
> 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/dcwein%40dcwein.cnc.net
>
>
>
More information about the NAGDU
mailing list