Guided by Love-- A Seeing Eye dog owner recounts her first

Everybody who knows me knows that I travel with a Seeing Eye dog. Hence, I have a good understanding and great compassion for these wonderful animals, as well as the legal aspects that ensure our access in the United States.

With that in mind, I want to share an article with you. In
Guided by love: A reporter recalls life with Bates, a Seeing Eye dog,
Liz Campbell recalls her first dog from The Seeing Eye. She describes in heartfelt detail, what the process was like for her to initially decide to get a guide dog, her years with her golden retriever Bates, and transitioning through the decision making process involved to get her new dog.

I tried to keep a normal routine that day — doing errands before work and walking to a restaurant for lunch. But my day was filled with tears. It was especially hard when friends came to my desk to tell Bates goodbye.

It was also, though, a day full of anticipation. I was getting a new dog soon. In fact, the next day, I was leaving for the Seeing Eye training facility, in Morristown, N.J.

I thought about a new dog and what he might be like. Could I trust him to guide me safely, as did Bates? Could I ever love him as much as I love Bates?

Liz is a government affairs reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. I first heard of her when she made a presentation at the state convention of the National Federation of the Blind several years ago. I listened as she gave a recount of what life was like for a journalism student who was blind attending Baylor University back in the days before word processors. I clearly recall the incident where she described the time when she turned in a lengthy article that numbered several typed pages, right at deadline,, only to be told that all the pages were blank. What had happened was that her typewriter’s ink ribbon had run out and, being blind, she didn’t notice that important detail.

I also met Liz a couple of years ago at the
Come Walk in Our Shoes
event, which I reported on here on Access Ability. Liz was there demonstrating the original KNFB Reader.

On apersonal note, I just recently found out that Liz was in class with my friend
Wayne Merritt,
When she was in Morristown training with her second Seeing Eye dog.

Anybody who has experienced the wonders and emotions involved in the process of getting a guide dog can certainly appreciate the tale, or should that be “tail,” of Bates. Liz’s professional talents for reporting shine through in good form as she candidly shares the feelings, thoughts, and even doubts that come to mind when pondering this process. Go back and click the link to read her entire article.

Or, if you prefer, there is also the
full version of the article,
with accompanying video and audio files that supplement her written words.

Legal changes coming to refine definition of service animal

I’ve written here previously about the importance of colleges and universities acting proactively to enact policies between service animals and other types of assistance animals. I can personally recall the discussion we had at my college in regards to service versus therapy animals. Here's some reasons to compel your school to do the same.

If you were not aware, the U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing the federal guidelines that govern access, including some proposed language changes in regards to the definition of a service animal.

My apologies for not getting this information up sooner. The deadline for action on this is Monday, August 18, 2008. So, please act quickly on this.

What follows is a letter that
The Seeing Eye, Inc.
sent to its more than 1,700 graduates, urging them to provide the DOJ with firsthand input from service dog handlers. It shows the sometimes subtle distinctions that a few words can make in proposals and policy.

The law will be tempered, so keep up on it. If your school has a policy in place, you will do well to stay abreast of this matter and keep your policy in line.

***

Dear Seeing Eye Family,

We need your help! The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking public comment on its newly proposed definition of a service animal. The Seeing Eye sent its own comments to the DOJ last Friday, and we urge you to join us by doing the same by the August 18 deadline.

Numbers count! It is vitally important that the DOJ hear as many comments as possible. In fact, this legislation is as significant as the early advocacy work that Morris Frank did for the dog guide movement decades ago. The fight isn't over, and our position needs to be heard. Submitting your comments is one of the most important things you, personally, can do for yourself and all other U.S. dog guide users.

The areas that seem to be most in need of revision are outlined in our letter below. Simply stated, we ask that the DOJ eliminate the phrase "minimal protection" in the new definition; require that the same behavior and training standards developed for dog guides be applied to all service animals; delete the "do work" wording by emphasizing task training as a defining factor in qualifying animals as "service animals;" and include a request that more guidance on taxi and private transportation access be added to the regulations. (See the Seeing Eye comments below to further illuminate these points, or to access a copy of the DOJ's Notice of Proposed Rule Making in either text or PDF format, you can go to
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648062a604

You can submit an electronic version of your comments at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=090000648062a604
but you must do so by August 18.

Your comments can be as simple as, "I support The Seeing Eye's position on service animals," but even better is to write your own opinions on all or some of the issues addressed in our public comment.

You will have an option to insert comments directly into a field on the form or send your comments as an attachment. We advise you to write your comments first before logging onto the site because if you are on the web page too long, it will "time out" and you will have to start over again. You should also be aware that all comments, including your own, will be made available for public viewing online at
http://www.regulations.gov

The remainder of this email contains the text from The Seeing Eye's submitted comment. Thank you for joining us in this effort.

Sincerely,
Jim Kutsch

****

August 8, 2008

Dr. James A. Kutsch, Jr., President
The Seeing Eye, Inc.
P.O. Box 375
Morristown, NJ 07963-0375

Re: Revisions to Service Animal Definition
Docket ID: DOJ-CRT-2008-0015-0001

The Seeing Eye, the pioneers and innovators of dog guide services, has been providing specially bred and trained dog guides for blind citizens of the United States since 1929. Through the efforts of one of our founders, Morris Frank, and other early graduates of our program, The Seeing Eye was instrumental in gaining access to all places of public accommodation for people traveling with dog guides. Today, as more and more people turn to animals for improved health and quality of life, The Seeing Eye commends the U.S. Department of Justice for its efforts to clarify its present regulatory language regarding the use of service animals. We particularly welcome the emphasis on maintaining control of the service animal at all times in public settings, the requirement of housebreaking and the Department's effort to formalize its position on emotional support/comfort animals.

In response to the NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 17th, The Seeing Eye offers the following comments for the Department’s consideration:

1. In response to question 9, The Seeing Eye believes that providing "minimal protection" should be removed from the proposed definition of a service animal.

The Seeing Eye is in agreement with the concerns expressed by the Coalition of Assistance Dog Organizations (CADO). We also concur that alternative language can be substituted for "providing minimal protection" while still adequately representing the tasks of specific service animals. For instance, despite the fact that dog guides provide minimal protection to their handlers every day, e.g. stopping at changes in elevation or maneuvering around obstacles, the Department has successfully included this concept within the definition of the tasks under "guiding individuals with impaired vision." Thus, providing minimal protection is intrinsically stated within the tasks that the animal performs.

2. In response to question 10, The Seeing Eye believes that the Department should eliminate certain species from the definition of service animal.

The Seeing Eye agrees with the need for the Department to establish a practical and reasonable species parameter as part of its definition of a service animal. While we have no expertise in the breeding, training and placement of species other than dogs, The Seeing Eye believes that only animals that are capable of meeting or exceeding the same high training, behavioral and safety standards as that of Seeing Eye® dogs are suitable for public access. Some of these standards include the animal's ability to calmly, quietly and consistently perform its specialized tasks in public, to urinate and defecate on command and to lie quietly beside its handler without blocking aisles, doorways, or otherwise be obtrusive in public settings.

3. In response to Question 11, The Seeing Eye believes that the Department should not impose a size or weight limitation on service animals.

The Seeing Eye agrees with the comments submitted by CADO and further adds that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce such a regulation.

4. The Seeing Eye is opposed to retaining the term "do work" in the definition of a service animal and urges the Department to form the basis of the service animal definition on task training.

The Seeing Eye is aware that, over the last several years, more than half of the Department's settlement agreements involving the "reasonable modification" requirement under Title III involved a public accommodation's refusal to permit a service animal's entry in a place of public accommodation. These claims make evident the need for concise, measurable guidance for those seeking a distinction between legitimate service animals and those used for emotional comfort or support.

We appreciate the Department's attempt to provide the broadest feasible access to individuals with service animals by using the term "do work" in its definition. However, given the fact that this term has historically been the source of much confusion and misinterpretation, we respectfully ask that the Department eliminate this language from its newly proposed definition. The Seeing Eye believes that the newly added examples of tasks performed by service animals effectively and adequately expand the meaning of service animal to include the varied services provided by working animals on behalf of individuals with all types of disabilities. Moreover, task training elevates the animal's status from a non-task trained animal to a trained service animal that is more likely to consistently mitigate its owner's disability in public and be easily identified by the tasks it performs. Again, service animals that are suitable and appropriate for public access must be held to extremely high standards.

5. The Seeing Eye urges the Department to include specific language about denial of service by private transportation providers to people who use service animals in its regulatory language.

One of the most common complaints we receive involves taxicab drivers who refuse to transport our graduates and their Seeing Eye dogs. Many drivers claim to have allergies, fears or religious beliefs that prohibit them from allowing dogs into their vehicles.

We realize that this issue is not addressed in the NPRM, but, nevertheless, we ask that the Department consider incorporating text into the proposed regulation guidance that specifies that allergies, religious beliefs and fear of animals are not valid excuses for denying access to passengers with service animals.

The Seeing Eye appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed service animal revisions. We applaud the Department for its outstanding work and believe that with the incorporation of the comments noted above, the revised regulations will promote the responsible use of access rights and prevent the erosion of societal tolerance for dog guide and other service animal teams in places of public accommodation.

More news about Springfield MO woman with monkey: Therapy or service animal status is main point in question

I’ve previously written here about
Debby Rose,
The Springfield, Missouri woman with a real monkey of a problem.

Rose has agoraphobia and a panic disorder and travels with a monkey at her side, which she claims is a service animal. She made national news headlines last year when the local health department sent 1,000 letters to local businesses, instructing them that her monkey is considered a therapy animal, and not a service animal as Rose has contended, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Director of Health said that by that definition, businesses and establishments governed by the ADA do not have to admit Rose with her monkey named Richard. He stated that the monkey’s presence would violate food and health codes. Rose argued that point in a well-publicized effort, but I’d not heard any more on this matter until recently.

There’s been some news lately on Rose’s on-going battle with the Springfield-Grene County Health Department.

She is challenging the health department’s assertion in court. Just this week,
Rose filed a civil suit
against not only the health department, but also Wal-Mart and Cox Health, where she attempted to attend nursing school

She contends that the letters sent out by the health department stopped her from going to public places, but also denied her from getting an education.

Many businesses quit letting Rose and Richard in after the health department sent out the letters to ban the monkey because of food and health codes.

Rose says she was stopped before she could go into the Wal-Mart on Kansas Expressway.

Rose says, “A manager walked in with the letter in his hand laughing saying you’re not getting in here.”

Rose says she and Richard can’t go anywhere that serves food including her daughter’s soccer game, Wal-Mart and even nursing school at Cox Health.

One of the biggest sticking points that the health department cites is the lack of training for the monkey. Even though Rose asserts that Richard is registered as an assistance animal with three different organizations, and is even a required restriction for her driver’s license, she has not convinced the health director of any formal training process that her animal assistant has undergone.

I’m just wondering about that little matter of that driver’s license restriction, wherein Rose says she was told by the state licensing agency that she could not drive without her “service animal due to her disability.” If that is found as a credible and valid point, will that validate Rose’s case?

This matter again brings to light the important legal difference between a therapy animal and assistance animal under the ADA. It also illustrates the reason why colleges and universities need to be proactive in developing a service animal policy.

More discussion on service animals

Several weeks ago, I was engaged in a conversation with a family friend and was explaining the Access Ability blog to him. One of the subjects that I discussed was a letter I had received from a reader, inquiring about therapy animals and access to hospitals in California. This conversation then took on a shift to include comparing service animals and therapy animals.

One of the questions my friend asked was what kinds of animals are used as service animals? (We have previously discussed guide dogs, so I didn’t even approach that group.) He assumed, and I agreed, that it is most often dogs, but I did explain about the case of the Missouri woman who was fighting with her city to recognize her monkey as a service animal. Additionally, on several occasions when I’ve flown with my Seeing Eye dog, I’ve had flight attendants tell me about a woman with some motor impairment, who regularly flies with an assistance monkey. The monkey will open her drinks for her, insert a straw and then hold it up for her to drink.

Of course, there are also other animals being used as service animals. One of the first that may come to mind are
guide horses for the blind,
a novel approach for providing an animal guide which attempts to maximize the miniature horse’s longer lifespan over that of conventional guide dogs.

But, I still defer to my assertion that it is most often dogs being used. Last week, I read a news article about a school presentation being made by somebody with their Hearing dog from
Texas Hearing and Service Dogs.
I think that dogs are well suited to do this type of work for people who are deaf. I would think there is room for other types of animals to conduct these functions, but am not certain that others are being trained in this capacity.

On an ADHD web site, I later also read about
4 Paws for Ability,
an organization that trains and provides service animals for people who have often been turned away from other service animal organizations.

One thing that 4 Paws does, which is quite interesting to me, is that they place animals with children. Some times, they even certify the parent and child together to work as a three part team with the dog. It basically surprised me that they place dogs with children. From my own experience, I know that it is a rare situation that a teenager will be able to get a guide dog.

They claim to be the innovater of the training and use of Autism assistance dogs. This is the organization’s apparent niche as the web site states that 90% of applicants are those working toward getting an Autism assistance dog.

Also on its web site, 4 Paws specifies it is not taking applications for psychiatric service dogs or emotional support animals for adult partners. I also find that note particularly interesting, being I had never heard of the term “psychiatric service dog” until working on my previous post. Now, I see it again, in such a brief time span.

I know there are many other service animal organizations out there doing some good work. I just don’t have their names or web sites handy at this time. If you would like to leave a comment and share the name of your favorite service dog organization, please do so. If you have personal experience with one of these, please share that as well.

University of Rochester case seeking to redefine term "Service Animal"

I have previously written here about how important it is for colleges and universities to act proactively and have a service animal policy in place. This policy should note the characteristics that differentiate a service animal from a therapy animal. The reason for posting about this today are some recent news articles and internet postings I’ve come across. I’ll discuss one of these on this post and write more very shortly.

A University of Rochester student filed a lawsuit on Oct. 1 to
have her Labrador retriever live with her in her dorm
and also Accompany her on campus. She has supplied some medical documentation as well as also supporting documents from dog trainers, but the university has denied her request, stating that she is neither disabled nor her dog a service animal. The comment by the UR Dean implies that they feel her dog is a pet and not a service animal.

In the article linked above, you might note two of the very credible sources the reporter sought out for their perspectives on this matter. First, there is
Jane Jarrow,
a name widely recognized and respected in disability service circles. Secondly, the reporter also sought input from the president of
Guide Dog Users Inc.,
an affiliate organization of the
American Council of the Blind,
one of the two major national blind consumer organizations. Both Jane Jarrow and GDUI are established and credible resources about service dogs and where they fall in under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

One other source cited in the article raises an issue of its own. You will notice the Psychiatric Service Dog Society (PSD) is presented as a respected and established organization. I’ll hand it to the organization. I’ve not heard of them prior to this article, but when checking out
the PSD web site,
the organization certainly appears legit. Additionally, the PSD Board of Directors is impressive and well credentialed. While we may not have heard of this group previously, I’ve got a feeling that we’ll be seeing a lot more from them in the future as well as people fighting to have accessibility with their psychiatric service dog.

Getting back to the original case, because I have no knowledge of the student’s claims or the documentation presented, I will not take a stand on this matter. However, her case serves to illustrate the need once again to have these important policies in place before facing these kinds of situations.

News article illustrates need for colleges to have service animal policy

Here is an interesting news article about a
Tenessee man’s experience with his service dog ,
including the challenges he encountered when attempting to go to class.

On the surface, the news article appears to be a human interest feature demonstrating the man’s adaptation to changing life situations. However, it is ultimately an illustration of the difficulties all sides face when a university does not have a service animal policy in place. The student faced hardships and barriers that should not have to be encountered in this enlightened 21st century where we have the Americans with Disabilities Act as a guide. Additionally, due to lack of foresight and proactive policies, the university looked Ill-prepared to manage a situation that had a common sense response.

Although this man trained his service dog himself, the article reports that she is registered with the
Service Animal Registry of America,
SARA, an apparently respectable and qualified resource for this type of information. The organization’s web site could serve well as a resource one might want to bookmark for future reference.

This story very clearly points out the fact that service animals are not always those used by blind people.

A few paragraphs from that story:
“With attending a public university that has no service animal policy, Michleski was met with hesitation and some disapproval from those who had never encountered a four-legged addition to a student that was not a pet. “

“Michleski explained how he was confronted by certain university officials concerning the use of Maggie and initially was escorted off of campus by safety and security until the matter could be resolved.”

“After deliberation between the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, Michleski and UTM, the student was eventually allowed back on campus with a temporary policy in place exclusively for Michleski's situation. “

Again, this paints a very ugly picture of what can happen for everybody when a college isn’t prepared.

So, how about your school? Does it have a service animal policy?