Guide Dog Users Inc. Supporting Guide Dog Teams Since 1972

A Handler's Responsibilities

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) protects a guide dog handler’s right to public access.  The ADA also outlines some responsibilities that come along with access rights.

Everybody wins when we guide dog handlers take a conscientious approach to working with the highly trained dogs that provide safe and effective mobility for us each and every day!

We can step out with confidence and pride by:

• Keeping our guides healthy, clean and well-groomed.
  Following our own veterinarians’ advice, and providing our guide dogs with appropriate veterinary exams, regular heartworm preventative and immunizations, as well as keeping our guides clean, regularly brushed and flea-free, all go a long way toward enabling both dog and handler to put their best foot forward.   
• Keeping our guides under our control and close to us at all times in public
  A well-behaved guide dog who remains quiet in, for instance, theaters and, who keeps its nose to itself around food, as well as in tight spaces such as elevators, is an asset to its handler in public settings.
• Cleaning up after our guide dogs.
  Picking up after our guide dog has relieved is an act of good citizenship and it’s the right thing to do.

Conscientious guide dog handling pays off in many ways.  Maintaining a guide dog’s professional dignity through consistent and conscientious dog-handling enhances that handler’s dignity, as well as the reliability of the dog’s guide work. In addition, well-managed and well-cared for guide dogs are welcomed in public.

Excerpts from “Commonly Asked Questions About Service Animals in Places of Business”,
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section:

• “... The ADA requires ... businesses to allow people with disabilities to bring their service animals onto business premises in whatever areas customers are generally allowed.” 
• “The service animal must be permitted to accompany the individual with a disability to all areas of the facility where customers are normally allowed to go. An individual with a service animal may not be segregated from other customers.”

Some Helpful Reminders For Responsible Guide Dog Handling:

• We are legally permitted to work our guide dogs in all public places and, at the same time, we are legally required to keep our guides under our supervision and control at all times.
• Conscientious dog-handling means staying aware of our dogs, even while we are seated or engaged in activities other than walking about.  This ensures that our dogs are safe and not engaging in destructive or solicitous behaviors.
• For the dog’s safety, and for the safety of others who might stumble over the dog, conscientious handlers keep their guides close and tucked under a chair or table while seated, for example, in a waiting room, in a meeting, or in a restaurant.
• Even if sometimes embarrassing, it is a guide dog handler’s responsibility to appropriately correct the dog and regain control of the situation, if the guide displays aggressive or socially unacceptable behaviors.  A well-handled guide dog does not jump on or lunge at anyone.
• Our guides work with us inside places that sell and serve food and drinks.  As a courtesy to others, and to reinforce good habits in our guides, conscientious handling dictates that the handler keep his/her guide dog close, and ensure that the dog does not steal, solicit or get into any food.
• When riding in a vehicle, it is both safe and considerate for a guide dog to be seated on the floor whenever possible.

Excerpts from “Commonly Asked Questions About Service Animals in Places of Business”, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section:

• “... The care or supervision of a service animal is solely the responsibility of his or her owner.”
• “You may exclude any animal, including a service animal, from your facility when that animal's behavior poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. For example, any service animal that displays vicious behavior towards other guests or customers may be excluded. You may not make assumptions, however, about how a particular animal is likely to behave based on your past experience with other animals. Each situation must be considered individually.”
• “Although a public accommodation may exclude any service animal that is out of control, it should give the individual with a disability who uses the service animal the option of continuing to enjoy its goods and services without having the service animal on the premises.”
• “There may be a few circumstances when a public accommodation is not required to accommodate a service animal--that is, when doing so would result in a fundamental alteration to the nature of the business. Generally, this is not likely to occur in restaurants, hotels, retail stores, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities. But when it does, for example, when a dog barks during a movie, the animal can be excluded.”

If you have further questions about service animals or other requirements of the ADA, you may call the U.S. Department of Justice's toll-free ADA Information Line at 800-514-0301 (voice) or 800-514-0383 (TDD).

Guide Dog Users, Inc. (GDUI) is an international organization dedicated to advocacy, peer support, public education and all aspects of training, working and living with dogs specially-trained to guide blind and visually-impaired people. GDUI does not train or place guide dogs, but acts as an independent resource network, providing information, support and advice concerning guide dogs, guide dog training and access laws to its members, the media and the public at large. GDUI is a special interest affiliate of the American Council of the Blind.

guide dog health care

Information about guide dog health care will go here.

Travel Resources

This page contains links to other web sites with useful information about the rights of service animal handlers when they travel, by air or by public transit.  You may wish to visit our International Travel Tips page as well.

New Service Announced by TSA: TSA Cares

A toll-free helpline to provide information and assistance to passengers with disabilities and medical conditions before they travel.

Travelers may call TSA Cares toll free at 1-855-787-2227 prior to traveling with questions about screening policies, procedures and what to expect at the security checkpoint. Travelers who are deaf or hard of hearing can use a relay service to contact TSA Cares or can e-mail  TSA-ContactCenter@dhs.gov. The hours of operation for the TSA Cares helpline are Monday through Friday 9 a.m. – 9 p.m. EST, excluding federal holidays. After hours, travelers can find information about traveling with disabilities and medical needs on TSA’s website at:http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/disabilityandmedicalneeds/

When a passenger with a disability or medical condition calls TSA Cares, a representative will provide assistance, either with information about screening that is relevant to the passenger’s specific disability or medical condition, or the passenger may be referred to disability experts at TSA. TSA recommends that passengers call approximately 72 hours ahead of travel so that TSA Cares has the opportunity to coordinate checkpoint support with a TSA Customer Service Manager located at the airport when necessary.

For more information, please visit:

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/disabilityandmedicalneeds/tsa_cares.shtm

Air Carrier Access Act Resources

The Aviation Consumer Protection Division of the U.S.-DOT has published all of its rules regarding service animals and other accommodations for persons with disabilities.

To view these rules, please visit the Aviation Consumer Protection Home Page.  This page contains important information regarding the rules governing air transportation via domestic and foreign carriers.

Under the section marked Part 382, Passengers with Disabilities there are links that will open the entire document of regulations in either MS-Word format or pdf format. (Using a search term of service animal the documents can be skimmed easily for information of interest.)

The Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) has a range of information for people with disabilities regarding the screening process prior to air travel.

Learn more about going through the screening process with a service animal.

US Public Transportation Resources

The United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration has a page specifically addressing the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Easter Seals Project ACTION has a very informative web site about public transportation and people with disabilities in the United States.

Travel to Hawaii

Though travel to and from Hawaii is domestic travel, there are mandatory requirements for travel with a guide dog that handlers must be aware of prior to their trip. 
Read about requirements for allowing guide dogs and service dogs to enter Hawaii without quarantine at the link below.

http://hawaii.gov/hdoa/ai/aqs/guide-service-dogs-entering-hawai-i

Dog Attack Handbook: "The Team, The Attack"

A State Legislator's Handbook on Guide Dog Protection

Guide Dog Users Inc.

First Edition, December, 2001

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Accounts by handlers of guide dogs attacked by loose dogs
• Elements of an effective guide dog protection law
• Guide dog law recently enacted by the state of Washington
• Concerns from a guide dog school
• Letter from the President of Guide Dog Users, Inc.
• Acknowledgements

Introduction

Guide Dog Users Inc. (GDUI) is the nation's leading consumer and advocacy organization of people with visual impairments working with guide dogs as their primary means of mobility. Since the formation of GDUI in 1972, both State and Federal laws have been developed and strengthened to protect the rights of blind people to be accompanied by their guide dogs. With nearly 1,000 members in all 50 states, GDUI continues to play a key role in the formation and oversight of such access laws as part of its ongoing mission.

One significant and very troubling issue continues to exist, however, in regard to safe and effective work with guide dogs. Clearly, State laws do not yet consistently protect the rights of blind individuals and their guide dogs to safely travel within their communities without being obstructed, harmed or killed due to harassment or attack by aggressive dogs - or by humans.

GDUI is saddened to tell you that we have received an increasing number of reported incidents involving loose dog attacks on guide dogs. Although most local and state laws prohibit dogs roaming about unleashed and unsupervised, many of the existing penalties are not significant enough to alter the behavior of an irresponsible pet owner. Furthermore, the penalty for permitting a dog to roam at-large is often difficult to administer and rarely covers the true value of the loss of a trained guide dog or its services.

Guide dogs are highly trained animals and are far from being ordinary dogs or pets; rather they enhance a blind person's freedom, safety and independence. When a guide dog is no longer serviceable as a guide due to the physical or emotional effects of an attack, it is devastating to the blind handler to lose this valued companion and source of mobility. Moreover, the cost of the dog and services from an organization that trains dog guides can range up to $60,000.00 per person/dog team.

To date, 16 states have recognized this problem and have passed laws protecting those who use guide and other assistance dogs. GDUI has compiled "The Team, The Attack" handbook to assist state and local government officials in understanding the tragic impact an attack may inflict on a guide dog team and to provide recommendations for crafting an effective guide dog protection law. The members of GDUI urge you to carefully review the contents of this handbook and to support the passage and enforcement of this vitally important law.

Accounts by handlers of guide dogs attacked by loose dogs

It is nearly impossible to overstate the fear, danger and frustration experienced by guide dog teams when loose dogs confront them. It is sincerely hoped that the importance of legislation regarding loose dog attacks on guide dogs will be evident in reading the following first-hand accounts of guide dog handlers who have been unfortunate enough to have suffered one or more of these frightening encounters.

• “…A big black dog came charging down the hill. It jumped on Addie, took her by the back of the neck, picked her up and shook her. That knocked me down. Then the attacking dog grabbed her by the throat. At that point, the owner arrived and got the dog under control. Addie was on the ground and whining. The dog had injured my lab's back and pelvis. She needed medical attention and treatment for several weeks afterward.”
  - Lynn Mason Courtney; Bethel, ME
• “…There were bunches of people around, but no one was willing to do anything. As I tried to move away, the dog followed Holly, staying face to face with her and continually barking and snapping, no matter what evasive maneuvers I tried.”
  - Jeanine Worden; Arlington, VA
• “…I heard the dogs charging at us from across the street. They immediately went for Gundy's neck. I yelled at them and tried to push them away from Gundy. I got in one good swing; when I tried again, I received a bite to the middle finger of my right hand. I then panicked and yelled for help. I have never felt so helpless before. Until then, I had the attitude that I could take care of myself in almost any situation.”
  - Bob Hachey; Waltham, MA
• “…It took tremendous amounts of love and constant working to help both of us recover emotionally from the attacks. It's horrible, and something you truly never forget.”
  - Kathy Huff
• “…Buddy and I have been harassed by loose dogs as well as by people who think it is fun to upset someone who is blind and can't see them. During one incident with a loose dog, Buddy became afraid and pulled me to the right and I hit a metal sign very hard. Then he didn't stop to warn me about the curb and I fell down into the street.”
  - Charlie Lynch; Newport News, VA
• “…The dog had its teeth latched to Amy's neck. I felt with my hands and realized Amy was in grave danger. My friend was trying to pull the dog off Amy as I pounded my fists on the dog's head, muzzle, and tried to pry his mouth off my dog. The fear going through my body was indescribable as I pictured my dog slowly dying in front of me.”
  - Kari Kopischke; Minneapolis, MN
• “…Zack had been attacked 3 times by loose dogs, including once, while we were waiting for a bus. Zack's right front leg was severely injured. Before his attacks, he loved other dogs; afterwards, he became very aggressive and defensive around them. This aggressiveness affected his work, to say nothing of the fact that, from that time on, I would panic every time I heard a dog!”
  - Bob Mates; Pittsburgh, PA
• “…The attack lasted about thirty seconds, but in those thirty seconds that seemed like an eternity, Pilar's right ear was ripped, and the dog had put a puncture hole between her shoulder blades.”
  - Joanie Delzer; Sacramento, CA
• “…As Lenny spun around to get away from the attacking dog, his leash wrapped around my ankles and I was yanked flat onto the sidewalk and dragged several feet before the owner was able to get his dog under control.”
  - Kevin Chinn; Phoenix, AZ
• “…I tried to push the dog off and do all that I could but it just hung tightly onto Sundae. One of the people on the street said they wanted to help me but they were afraid of this dog and that the owners had gone to work and left the dog to run loose. Next thing I know, we were in the middle of the intersection and Sundae was sprawled out in the road. All the cars saw me crying and asking for help but they just kept driving around us. Thankfully, a garbage truck stopped and a guy took a stick to the loose dog.”
  - Marie Keane; Pittsburgh, PA
• “…Holiday was slashed on the inside and outside of her right hind leg, as well as on her right front leg and chest. She suffered deep and jagged bite wounds to her neck - so serious that a second surgery had to be performed to cut away tissue that would not heal.”
  - Armida Martinez
• “…The dog did not give any real warning, he just attacked. It was awfull! All I could do was drop the harness handle and leash and let Kiowa protect herself.”
  - John A. Flemming; Williams, OR
• “…As I approached the Student Union, out of nowhere, a dog lunged at my dog snarling and growling. I screamed and screamed; somewhere along the way, I dropped her harness and just held the leash, as I feared she/they would go into the street. After the dogs were separated, I flew into the Student Union Building and downstairs to hide.”
  - Darla Dahl; Americus, GA
• “…Evan and I were home from guide dog school less than 6 weeks when he was not only assaulted 4 times in less than 2 weeks by the same neighborhood dog but this same dog would often sit on my front stairs and prevent us from safely approaching our house. 23 calls were made to the local dog officer - not to mention the countless calls to the local police department who claimed they could not do anything until the dog officer filed a formal complaint.”
  - Pat Hill; Malden, MA
• “…Unleashed, uncontrolled pet dogs are one of the most dangerous things we guide dog handlers must deal with as we go about our daily routines.”
  - DeAnna Noriega; Manitou Springs, CO

Elements of an Effective Guide Dog Protection Law

Existing guide dog protection laws - where they do exist - are not always sufficient to prevent the growing number of attacks on or interference with guide dog teams or the devastating effects that result from such events. This section of the handbook is designed to identify and explain the critical issues that guide dog teams face when confronted by a loose or inadequately controlled dog or by persons who purposely or otherwise impede, attack or harm the team. Recommended approaches for addressing the problems that result from non-existent or insufficient laws are also provided. It should be noted that nothing in this section is intended to negate any civil remedies that may be available for such violations.

ISSUE #1:

It has become increasingly apparent that animal control officers, whose services are not typically available during non-standard business hours, cannot successfully remedy an attack situation in a timely and effective manner. Moreover, the confusion as to who is responsible for taking action in a dog attack situation continually results in a less than favorable outcome for the guide dog team.

EXPLANATION:

Enforcement is a key element in the success of a guide dog protection law. Although implementing stiffer penalties and fines for failing to keep pets under control may encourage compliance with state and local leash laws, the need for around-the-clock enforcement is vital.

It is important to recognize that, when a guide dog is attacked, the blind person's travel is suddenly and severely restricted, often without any warning. And either or both team members become instantly vulnerable to bodily injury inflicted by the attacking dog. Both guide dog team members are truly at a disadvantage during the attack. Blind handlers face this emergency without the opportunity to use vision to defend themselves or their guides, while the guides, who are bred and trained to be non-aggressive, are also harnessed and leashed.

In the confusion of the attack and its aftermath, either or both team members may be exposed to vehicular traffic or other environmental dangers without being safely oriented to their immediate surroundings.

Timely action by the police would not only provide greater protection for the guide dog team but may also be more likely to result in corroborating evidence from sighted witnesses who can report observations and descriptions that the blind person may not be able to report.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The law should explicitly identify the police as being responsible for the enforcement of a guide dog protection law thereby eliminating any potential conflicts between animal control and law enforcement officials. Penal codes should be developed for violations involving dogs or persons that attack guide dogs. Fines collected from such attacks should be utilized to offset any costs incurred in the enforcement of these laws.

ISSUE #2:

Attack on a guide dog team by a leashed dog that is inadequately controlled by its owner/keeper can have the same harmful effects as those of a vicious attack by a loose dog - regardless of the handler's intent.

EXPLANATION:

Stray dogs and irresponsible owners who let their animals run loose are not the only ones who pose a threat to the guide dog team's safety. Many pet owners fail to understand that a working dog should not be distracted while in the discharge of its duties. Pet owners who allow a leashed dog to make physical contact with a guide dog or to otherwise distract or interfere with a guide dog needlessly risk the safety of the working team.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

It should be unlawful for any person to permit any dog that is owned, harbored, or controlled by him or her to cause injury to or the death of a guide dog while the working dog is in discharge of its duties regardless of the intent of the offending dog's owner/keeper/handler. Criminal penalties for this type of offense should be significant enough to alter the behavior of an irresponsible dog owner, yet differences in punishment should be levied for willfully vs. recklessly vs. negligently causing damages to the handler and unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to a guide dog. Incremental increases in punishment should be used to punish - hopefully to prevent - repeat offenses.

ISSUE #3:

The total financial burden sustained by a guide dog handler whose working dog has been attacked is not always evident, but is often substantial and - in many instances - emotionally, as well as financially devastating to the blind handler. Unfortunately, such costs are seldom fully recovered due to the inadequate provisions set forth by most existing laws.

EXPLANATION:

Besides costing taxpayers money due to animal welfare complaint investigations and enforcement efforts, the price of loose dog attacks to both the blind handler and the dog may be extraordinary. Such attacks can be costly in terms of injury, veterinary care, guide dog retraining or replacement, emotional trauma and loss of mobility for the blind handler.

In addition to the immediate effects of the attack, there may be damages of an on-going nature that will require follow-up treatment. Lost wages may result from injuries to the handler or loss of the guide dog's services.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The guide dog protection law should clearly place the responsibility on the owner/keeper/handler of the attacking dog for all veterinary, medical, and other costs resulting from the attack - including replacing the handler's lost income and the costs for remedial training or replacement of the guide dog.

ISSUE #4:

The outcome of an attack by a small dog or a dog not typically characterized as an aggressive breed can be just as devastating to a guide dog or its handler as that of a breed that is usually considered dangerous.

EXPLANATION:

Any dog can become a threat if they are not properly socialized and trained, if they are not properly cared for and restrained, if they are mistreated, or if they are deliberately bred or encouraged to attack people or animals.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The guide dog protection law should be a deterrence to the owner/keeper/handler of any dog that would otherwise attack or interfere with a guide dog team, regardless of the size, breed, shape or form of the offending dog. Reference in the law to any specific breed of dog, therefore, should be avoided.

ISSUE #5:

Loose and improperly controlled pets are not the only threats to the safety of the guide dog team. Humans who intentionally interfere with a guide dog team may have equally damaging effects on the team.

EXPLANATION:

"A less frequent threat to the guide dog team than loose dogs, but just as serious, is the individual who specifically targets the blind handler or guide dog with malicious intent."

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Any person who intentionally causes injury to or the death of a guide dog should be met with severe penalties including long-term imprisonment, harsh fines and possibly prosecution for "hate crimes".

Any person who intentionally interferes with the use of a guide dog by obstructing, harassing or otherwise jeopardizing the safety of the dog guide or its handler should also bear criminal penalties.

Finally, any person who wrongfully obtains or exerts unauthorized control over a dog guide with the intent to deprive the dog guide user of his or her dog guide should be guilty of theft in the first degree. Persons committing such crimes should also be ordered to pay full restitution for any damages when applicable.

Guide dog protection laws must also provide protection against any human attack that interferes with the mobility, health or safety of the guide dog and handler - regardless of whether or not the guide dog is in the discharge of its duties at the time of attack.

Guide dog law recently enacted by the state of Washington

Layla's Law was recently enacted by the Washington State Legislature and is often cited as one of the strongest and clearest guide dog protection laws of any State. Yet disputes as to who should enforce this law have already resulted in a move to amend it so that the intent of the law - to have around the clock police protection - is more clearly spelled out. The use of the term "reckless disregard" in the law has also been questioned. As a result, the importance of the offending dog owner's intent to cause harm is now also being scrutinized. Despite this, Layla's Law is presented below as an example of one State's effort to protect its citizens who rely on their guides for their ability to travel and live independently.

ESSB 5942 - Layla's Law

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

Sec. 1. This act may be known and cited as Layla's Law.

Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 9.91 RCW to read as follows:

1. (a) Any person who has received notice that his or her behavior is interfering with the use of a dog guide or service animal who continues with reckless disregard to interfere with the use of a dog guide or service animal by obstructing, intimidating, or otherwise jeopardizing the safety of the dog guide or service animal user or his or her dog guide or service animal is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that for a second or subsequent offense it is a gross misdemeanor.
   
   (b) Any person who, with reckless disregard, allows his or her dog to interfere with the use of a dog guide or service animal by obstructing, intimidating, or otherwise jeopardizing the safety of the dog guide or service animal user or his or her dog guide or service animal is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW, except that for a second or subsequent offense it is a gross misdemeanor.
    
2. (a) Any person who, with reckless disregard, injures, disables, or causes the death of a dog guide or service animal is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
   
   (b) Any person who, with reckless disregard, allows his or her dog to injure, disable, or cause the death of a dog guide or service animal is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
   
    
3. Any person who intentionally injures, disables, or causes the death of a dog guide or service animal is guilty of a class C felony.
   
    
4. Any person who wrongfully obtains or exerts unauthorized control over a dog guide or service animal with the intent to deprive the dog guide or service animal user of his or her dog guide or service animal is guilty of theft in the first degree, RCW 9A.56.030.
   
    
5. (a) In any case in which the defendant is convicted of a violation of this section, he or she shall also be ordered to make full restitution for all damages, including incidental and consequential expenses incurred by the dog guide or service animal user and the dog guide or service animal which arise out of or are related to the criminal offense.
   
   (b) Restitution for a conviction under this section shall include, but is not limited to:
   
   (i) The value of the replacement of an incapacitated or deceased dog guide or service animal, the training of a replacement dog guide or service animal, or retraining of the affected dog guide or service animal and all related veterinary and care expenses; and
   
   (ii) Medical expenses of the dog guide or service animal user, training of the dog guide or service animal user, and compensation for wages or earned income lost by the dog guide or service animal user.
    
6. Nothing in this section shall affect any civil remedies available for violation of this section.
    
7. For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
   
   (a) "Dog guide" means a dog that is trained for the purpose of guiding blind persons or a dog trained for the purpose of assisting hearing impaired persons.
   
   (b) "Service animal" means an animal that is trained for the purposes of assisting or accommodating a disabled person's sensory, mental, or physical disability.
   
   (c) "Notice" means a verbal or otherwise communicated warning prescribing the behavior of another person and a request that the person stop their behavior.
   
   (d) "Value" means the value to the dog guide or service animal user and does not refer to cost or fair market value.

Concerns from a guide dog school

The Seeing Eye, the nation's oldest school providing specially bred and trained dog guides for blind individuals, offers the following explanation to assist in the understanding of how a guide dog team can be affected by a dog attack. Although the text specifically references The Seeing Eye, the letter below accurately represents the sentiments of most, if not all, such schools including the other sponsors of this handbook - Guide Dogs for the Blind, Guide Dogs of the Desert, Guiding Eyes for the Blind, and Leader Dogs for the Blind.

To Whom It May Concern

Each year, scores of blind people with dog guides are attacked by dogs off leash, roaming the streets. The impact of such attacks is tragic and costly.

Threats and attacks by other dogs not properly controlled can destroy a Seeing Eye dog's ability to guide safely and make the blind person fearful of traveling freely. The trauma of such an attack on both the blind person and the dog is inestimable. It can undo training and self confidence, for the person and the dog, and grossly interfere with a blind person's access to streets, sidewalks and all places of public accommodation guaranteed by state laws and by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Dog attacks on dog guides are devastating. Some dogs die. Even if the dog survives the attack, it often becomes fearful of other dogs and the location where the attack occurred. The fear manifests itself by the dog's refusal to approach any dog it meets along the route it travels with its blind master. It takes a long time for the fear to wane and this diminishes the blind person's freedom to travel. And while the Seeing Eye dog is bred to be mellow and is trained to ignore other animals, once attacked, its natural instincts may make it aggressive in return. An aggressive dog guide cannot work properly in social situations and the blind owner would have to obtain a new dog. It may take several months waiting for a class date and the appropriate dog, and then four weeks in residence at The Seeing Eye for a blind person to learn to work with a new dog guide. This would be a tremendous imposition and interrupt the blind person's job, family life and routine.

It costs The Seeing Eye $50,000 to breed, raise and train a dog and to provide a blind person with round trip airfare to New Jersey, room and board for four weeks, the course of instruction, the dog, the dog's equipment and follow-up services for life. A dog will work on average 8 years. To disrupt the working life a trained dog guide because a pet owner did not control its dog is shameful waste.

Nationwide, there are approximately 8,000 citizens who are blind leading independent, productive lives because they can travel freely and safely to work, to school, to places of worship, around their communities and on vacation because of their trained dog guides. All are vulnerable to a growing number of rogue and attack dogs. The problem is just as serious in cities where more people are purchasing guard dogs as it is in rural areas where dogs traditionally have run free and in suburban communities where pet ownership is on the rise.

Many states already have recognized this problem and have laws to punish residents whose pets attack dog guides and their owners. Among them are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington.

Your state's proposed legislation, expanded to enforce leash laws and impose strict penalties, will rein in the owners of offending dogs and help to lessen if not totally eliminate the tragedy and cost that result from attacks on dog guides and their owners.

Sincerely yours,
Douglas Roberts
Director of Programs
The Seeing Eye &trade

Letter from the President of Guide Dog Users, Inc.

If you consider the deep love that binds an owner to their pet and if you add to this the sense of ownership and dependence that attaches an individual to their automobile, then you begin to have a picture of the unique relationship between the guide dog handler and their dog. And if you understand the time and effort needed to prepare a dog for its role as a guide, you can appreciate how valuable that animal is.

It takes skilled breeding methods plus a year to eighteen months of love and commitment from a family that temporarily adopts a tiny puppy before the guide- dog-to-be is even ready for training. The dog then returns to the school where it was born and is placed in the care of a trainer who respects the loving heart and innate desire of the dog to work for the paycheck of praise. It takes from four to six months to train the dog to be a guide, training that requires the dog to control its canine instincts in order to be a safe and reliable partner for a blind person.

When the dog is at last fully trained, a match occurs with the prospective new handler. The dog meets a nervous, yet hopeful person who is either totally inexperienced in handling a dog or who has ended a relationship with a previous partner. People who previously had a guide dog are often unsure that they will ever bond and work with this new dog in quite the same way.

Bit by bit, the team begins to do more good work than bad and they both begin to believe that it is safe to offer their hearts to one another. This process continues after the handler takes the dog home and the miracle that has been taking place becomes a bond so strong and so complete that it is almost tangible. This is the story of that well-behaved and excellently trained guide dog and its handler that you have probably seen and perhaps with whom you have shared a word and a smile.

Imagine the hurt and rage, the sorrow and frustration at the needless waste when a working dog is changed into a being that cowers and trembles when it reaches a certain intersection or passes by a certain house or sees another dog or smells a smell or hears a sound that brings back that fearful, awful moment when, from out of nowhere, it was attacked by a loose dog. Imagine fear so strong that the dog finds it impossible to work for the master to whom it has lovingly and selflessly devoted its life. Imagine all the emotions felt by the handler as they try to rescue the dog. The handler cannot describe the attacking dog, cannot describe the owner of the attacking dog, can only stand alone - angry and afraid - soon realizing that no one will come forward to testify to what has happened. Imagine the feelings that defy description when the handler comes to the realization that this wonderful guide must be retired and that they must begin this process all over again with no assurance that their new guide will not suffer the same fate.

Every year, GDUI members contact us with versions of this tale of horror and needless waste and pain. One such tragedy should be enough to motivate passage and enforcement of this vitally important law and the mounting of a rigorous publicity campaign. Will you do the right thing? Will you stand with us and lend your time, talent and energy to ending this senseless, tragic loss?

Sincerely,
Debbie Grubb, President
Guide Dog Users Inc.

Acknowledgements

Guide Dog Users Inc. wishes to express sincere thanks to all those who have contributed in various ways to the creation of this very important handbook. Special tribute goes to Thom Ainsworth of Guide Dogs for the Blind who provided valuable legislative input and guidance each step of the way and to Jon Steuerwalt who worked tirelessly to compile and edit all the pieces of this handbook. Many thanks to each and every member of GDUI's legislative committee whose commitment to the protection of guide dogs inspired and made this publication possible. Finally, we extend our gratitude to the guide dog schools identified below that have generously contributed information and financial support for the production of The Team, The Attack handbook.

Ginger Bennett
Guide Dog Users Inc.

Sponsors

• Guide Dogs for the Blind; San Rafael, CA
  1-800-295-4050
• Guide Dogs of the Desert; Palm Springs, CA
  1-760-329-6257
• Guiding Eyes for the Blind; Yorktown Heights, NY
  1-800-942-0149
• Leader Dogs for the Blind; Rochester, MI
  1-888-777-5332
• The Seeing Eye Inc.; Morristown, NJ
  1-800-539-4425

Additional Resources

Guide Dogs for the Blind has compiled protection laws from all 50 states.

ACB Pedestrian Safety

GDUI is proud to work in partnership with the American Council of the Blind on pedestrian safety issues.

The Pedestrian Safety Page of the ACB web site features articles and useful information, including the Pedestrian Safety Handbook, edited by GDUI President, Debbie Grubb.

Visit our pages about the Segway human transporter and pedestrian safety and its effects on guide dog teams.

Segway human transporter and pedestrian safety

The GDUI Advocacy and Legislative Committees bring you the following information about the Segway Human Transporter. This device poses a definite threat to guide dog teams if allowed on public sidewalks. Thanks to the American Council of the Blind for the message below regarding this device.

American Council of the Blind
Important pedestrian safety alert!

The following document was prepared by Jennifer Barrow of the American Council of the Blind (ACB) exploring the clear and immediate dangers to pedestrians arising from the national campaign to allow the use of the Segway in the pedestrian path of travel. ACB asks that you read the document carefully and make your opinion known to your federal Senators and Representatives as well as your Senator and Representative at your state house. There is no question that a strong campaign has been mounted by the makers of this product without sufficient regard to the safety of blind and other pedestrians.

You may reach your Federal Senators and Representative by calling their national offices through the federal switchboard number of (202)-224-3121 or by calling or visiting with them as they are currently home for the Congressional summer recess. Often your Senators and Representative will hold town meetings where you can bring up this issue. The federal legislation to allow the Segway on sidewalks and other pedestrian paths of travel is in the Senate S2024 and in the House HR1426.

Calling upon your elected Senator and Representative in your state capital is also important. Not only have the makers of the Segway pushed for federal legislation, but also are seeking to get the freedom to operate this device through local state laws.

In the end, the Segway may well have a good use and place in our environment, but it is clear from the following that insufficient attention is being paid to pedestrian safety and injuries and deaths are not the price we should be paying for innovation.

-- Charlie Crawford
Executive Director
American Council of the Blind

Will the well being of innocent guide dogs and cane travelers be in jeopardy if the Segway gains the right to prowl our sidewalks and pedestrian walkways? Well, no one is quite sure because mums the word.

What is the Segway Human Transporter? The Segway HT is the first electric powered self-balancing scooter that remains upright through a persons center of gravity and other physical principals. Armed with a battery of gyroscopes and tilt censors, the Segway moves forward when its operator leans forward, and stops or backs up by reverse torque when he leans backwards. The operator of the Segway stands on a platform 8 inches off the ground, which spans the width between two parallel wheels, and holds on to handlebars. There are three models of Segway: two of which are designed for industrial and commercial applications, and the third is a personal transport model that will be available to consumers in late 2002. It is 21 inches wide, 16 inches long and weighs 69 pounds. Its maximum speed capacity of 20 mph is limited to 10 mph by a speed-governing key, which can be overridden. The average pedestrian walks at 3 mph. The two commercial models are slightly wider, longer, and heavier and are limited at 12.5 mph. Even though the personal consumer model is not yet on the market, legislatures around the nation are already anticipating its arrival with open arms and reckless haste.

Why should we as a community of people who are blind be concerned? The Segway Corporation has not yet provided the public with specific data from crash tests that demonstrate the resulting damage of a Segway-pedestrian collision. Considering the Segways momentum, velocity and mass, what does simple common logic suggest? In addition, since the device is battery powered, only a vigilant and alert ear would perceive a Segways approach amid the hubbub of a city landscape. Despite the lack of adequate safety and crash test data, at least 26 states have already passed legislation that allows Segway on sidewalks.

Federal legislation:

There are currently two bills in Congress that concern Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Devices, which is the category that was coined to distinguish the Segway from other motorized vehicles thus exempting it from adherence to their regulations.

S. 2024, introduced by Sen. Smith (R-NH)- Title: A bill to amend title 23 of united states code to authorize use of Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device on trails and pedestrian walkways constructed or maintained with federal aid highway funds. The last major action was on 6/17/02 when it was passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee with no amendments and an amendment to the title. It was placed on the Senate legislative calendar.

H.R. 1426, introduced by Rep. Bass (R-NH)- Title: To amend the consumer product safety Act to provide that low-speed electric personal assistive mobility devices are consumer products subject to that act. The latest action was on 4/16/01, when the bill was referred to the subcommittee of Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. This bill is highly industry motivated, as Rep. Bass had advanced knowledge of the Segway technology. Its goal is primarily intended to assist the corporation by reclassifying the device as a consumer product, thus removing it from the scrutiny of the NHTSA.

Admittedly, widespread public use of the Segway, if the trend catches on at all, remains many years away. However, in the meantime, one may see commercial Segways, plus the handful that the wealthy will purchase right away. It does not seem reasonable that the state and federal legislatures should rush and push through legislation without due pause to collect safety data and hear out potential concerns from people with disabilities, childrens advocates and the elderly. Even though many States have already passed bills, it is still important that the Congressmen understand the concern of its constituents for the future. The other half of the union either has pending legislation, failed bills or no bills as of yet. It is important to communicate concerns to the federal Congress, but it is each local and State jurisdiction that decides what degree of freedom and regulations the Segway requires on locally and State funded property. Instead of waving the Segway through, the States should consider: Do they even belong on sidewalks? Should there be a sidewalk speed limit? Should helmets and reflectors be required? Should they make a sound to signal their approach? Do DUI laws apply? Perhaps a minimum age? How about licensure, registration and vision testing?

For more info, read the pending federal legislation and find out whats going on in your State. Also check out: Segway.com Americawalks.com The Childrens Center of Injury Research and Policy Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals Pedestrian and Bicycling Information Center

Below is pasted poignant testimony given by Gary A. Smith, MD, DrPH that was given before the Highways and Transportation Committee of the Ohio Senate in opposition to SB231. Accessed 8/1/02 at http://www.injurycenter.org/segway then click download PDF. Please note that ACB does not endorse the use of PDF files since as in this case, we needed to print and scan the file to include it below rather than having been able to download an html or text document for that purpose.

Text of testimony:

Remarks Before the Highways and Transportation Committee
Ohio Senate
Regarding SB231
April 23, 2002
Gary A. Smith, MD, DrPH

My name is Gary Smith and I am the Director of the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Childrens Hospital here in Columbus, where I am also a pediatric emergency medicine physician in the emergency department. I have been a pediatrician for 20 years, and most of that time I have worked in emergency departments and trauma centers of large childrens hospitals. I was the Chief of Emergency Medicine at Childrens Hospital for 8 years and was the Associate Director of the Trauma Program for approximately 7 years. I currently devote most of my professional time to research where my focus is on the epidemiology and prevention of injury, especially to children. I am chair of the Ohio Commission on the Prevention of Injury and chair of the Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention of the Ohio Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. I am also a member of the National Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention of the American Academy of Pediatrics. I am here today representing the Ohio Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Chairman Armbruster and members of the committee, I would first like to emphasize that I am not against the Segway device, nor are the child safety colleagues, whom I represent. Indeed, we believe that this is a truly innovative transportation device with clear advantages. It has the potential for facilitating safe transportation in appropriate settings under appropriate conditions. However, we oppose exempting the Segway or any electric personal assistive mobility device from existing laws covering similar modes of motorized conveyance without due consideration of the effect of thrusting it into the pedestrian arena. The fact that existing Ohio law reflects careful consideration of the requirements for safe operation of other similar means of motorized transport, such as a motorized bicycle, argues that the Segway should come under the same level of scrutiny. Chairman Armbruster and members of the committee, the Segway is a motorized vehicle. It doesn't matter whether the wheels are in tandem or side by side, whether it stops by friction brakes or reverse torque, or whether it accelerates by the use of a throttle or tilt sensors. I can call a chair a semi-erect posture supportive device, but it is still a chair. An electric personal assistive mobility device transports people using a motor for power. Therefore, it is clearly a motorized vehicle.

Further, the creation of an Oversight Committee to monitor the experience with the Segway device through the end of this calendar year, as provided for in HB5O1, the companion bill to SB23 fin the Ohio House of Representatives, is an in adequate answer to these safety concerns. These devices will not be introduced into the consumer marketplace until 2003. There simply will not be enough Segways in use, nor enough time in use, to gain enough experience to base any modifications of the law on observational data by years end. Because there will be little additional data and because the work of this legislature primarily occurs in its committees, now is the time to consider these safety issues and not delegate this task to an oversight group that will be asked to act on inadequate data by years end.

These devices travel at speeds of up to 12.5 mph, and other models that travel faster are under development. They weigh between 69 and 95 pounds, can carry a person weighing 250 pounds, and if appropriately adapted, can carry additional cargo. The example of 125 pounds of mail as cargo was cited by Mr. Rocky Black in his testimony in the House committee. These speeds are similar to those of a motorized bicycle, which is defined in Ohio Revised Code as being equipped with a helper motor.. capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of no greater than 20 mph on a level surface. The definition of an electric personal assistive mobility device in SB23 1 appears to most closely parallel that of a motorized bicycle in current Ohio statute, based on speed, weight, and motorized power.

Motorized bicycles are not allowed on sidewalks. Operators of motorized bicycles may be 14 or 15 years old if they have a probationary motorized bicycle license, or at least 16 years old with a motorized bicycle license or drivers license. They must pass a written test and also demonstrate their ability to operate and control a motorized bicycle to an examining officer to receive a motorized bicycle license. This license must be renewed every 4 years. Operators younger than 18 years must wear a protective helmet and the motorized bicycle must be equipped with a rear- view mirror. Ohio Revised Code also prohibits carrying a passenger on a motorized bicycle. Proponents of SB23 1 should provide evidence, beyond vague references to new, innovative, pre- market technology, indicating why these already existing, thoughtfully developed requirements for a similar human transporter should not also apply to the Segway device.

There are no minimum standards identified in SB23 1 that an individual must meet, in order to be an operator of one of these electric scooters. None! There are no licensing or test requirements. The bill allows operators of these electric scooters to travel on Ohio roadways where they must obey Ohio traffic laws, yet there is no requirement that operators pass a test to assure that they understand those laws, which is a requirement for operators of similar motorized vehicles on Ohio roadways. There is no requirement for operators younger than 18 years to wear a protective helmet. The Segway legislation in Georgia, which has passed both chambers of its legislature and awaits the governors signature, requires that all operators of the device, regardless of age, wear a helmet at all times. There is no minimum age specified in SB23 1. Indeed, there is nothing in this legislation that would prevent a young child from operating one of these devices. Segway representatives have stated that they do not allow persons younger than 16 years to test drive the Segway devices during their demonstrations. It is troubling that the model legislation promoted by Segway is not consistent with its own company safety practices. SB23 1 must address minimum requirements for Segway scooter operators.

Pedestrian injuries are a major problem in the United States. There were 78,000 pedestrian injuries and 4,700 fatalities in the US in 2000. Pedestrian deaths and injuries disproportionately occur to individuals at the young and old ends of the age spectrum. Children are particularly vulnerable given their developmental immaturity, which is characterized by often impulsive behavior and poor judgment. Allowing motorized vehicles on the sidewalk will require children to negotiate motorized traffic, something they are developmentally incapable of doing. Using some basic assumptions, the calculated amount of force involved in a collision between a Segway device and a child can be significant and could easily cause serious injury. The purpose of a sidewalk is the separation of pedestrians from motorized traffic. This bill nullifies that effective and critical injury prevention strategy.

Even if the Segway device were able to come to an abrupt halt from a speed of 12.5 mph, the operator will be thrown forward and into the pedestrian or other object that was struck based on the laws of Newtonian physics. Individuals that speak to how quickly the Segway can stop are also forgetting that a young child can dart unexpectedly in front of one of these devices traveling at top speed with no time for the operator to react. A collision is inevitable and the laws of physics will prevail, and potentially, a significant energy transfer will occur to the pedestrian and also to the operator, resulting in injury. Segway representatives demonstrate a Segway riding over the top of a persons hand without injury; however, this is irrelevant to the real injury hazard of the device colliding head-on into a pedestrian.

It is troubling that the manufacturer has offered no data to support its safety claims. For example: they claim that a Segway is safer than a bicycle or skateboard..however, no injury data exist and no crash test data have been revealed. Demonstrations of collisions at low speed by a driver anticipating the impact are not adequate substitutes for scientific crash performance data. The Segway stops by reverse torque, which has been implied to be better than friction brakes.. however, no data on stopping distances have been provided. The Segway is as narrow as a person s should width and can spin in one spot.. This is irrelevant to crash avoidance. A bicycle and a skateboard ar narrower than a Segway, and dynamic maneuverability is what matters, not static spinning. I have seen a Segway demonstrated, and even at low speeds, I am not impressed by its maneuverability. There are no data on Segways performance in a slalom test. Matthew Dailida, Manager of State Government Affairs for Segway, stated that the device will rise up on one wheel if it corners too quickly. Although the Segway has internal gyroscopes for stability, the driver of the device does not. And unlike other motor vehicles, the driver of the Segway is standing unrestrained, not sitting. The operators high center of gravity is likely to pull him/her off of the scooter in a quick turn. Data supporting manufacturer claims would be beneficial for Segway marketing and would alley concerns of safety experts. In response to my inquiry, Matthew Dailida of Segway replied via e-mail on April 23, 2002. Data.. (are) in developmental stages and (are) unavailable (for) public consumption.

Our fascination and awe at the innovativeness and high-tech wizardry of these devices should not distract us from what we know from basic high school physics. Segway could easily submit its product for performance testing at an independent test facility, if it has not done so already, and make those results public. It is important to note that even though Ron Medford, a U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) employee, is on paid sabbatical and working with Segway, the CPSC does not do pre-market testing of products and has not evaluated the Segways performance. In addition, contrary to the article in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Medford is not an engineer.

SB23 1 does not include a specification of standard equipment on the Segway device that would increase visibility at night. Instead, the law recommends that the operator or device be equipped with a lamp and a reflector. The science of injury prevention indicates that building safety features directly into the design of a device will be more effective than expecting an operator to remember to take along and appropriately use safety equipment every time it is needed.

Mr. Matthew Dailida of Segway stated that the Segway device will benefit the health of Americans because it is non- polluting. Not only is this claim difficult, at best, to quantify, but it also ignores the important potential adverse impact of this scooter on exercise and obesity. Lack of exercise and obesity are currently public health problems of epidemic proportions in our country with major health consequences.

Quoting from a Columbus Dispatch article on March 11, 2002, Page Cl: The company says the Segway is ideally suited for large-scale manufacturing plants and warehousing operations, travel and tourism, public safety, corporate and campus transportation, and mail, package and product delivery. Given this large potential market, Ohio will not be left out of any transportation revolution heralded by this innovative device, regardless of whether SB231 passes or not.

Exempting the Segway or any electric personal assistive mobility device from existing Ohio laws covering similar modes of motorized transportation, such as the motorized bicycle, should not be done without real world evidence supporting such a dramatic change. Reassurances from manufacturer representatives and a brief demonstration of the product, without independent objective evaluation and data, are inadequate criteria for departure from current law that exists to protect both device operators and pedestrians. Children are a particularly vulnerable group to injury and deserve the full protection provided by our laws. Without further modification, this is not a good bill for Ohioans, and Ohio children in particular. The only clear beneficiary of this legislation is Segway.

Representatives from Segway claim that legislation similar to SB23 1 has sailed through other states without resistance. However, this has been largely due to a lack of awareness about the existence of the legislation, and not due to a lack of safety concerns. We are now seeing mounting resistance. Some states have voted down or tabled the legislation. Nationally, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Consumers Union, Public Interest Research Group, Consumer Federation of America, and others have expressed concerns regarding the Environment and Public Works Committee voting on S.2024 without hearings, given the existing un-addressed safety issues. In his letter to the Environment and Public Works Committee, Dr. Louis Z. Cooper, President of the American Academy of Pediatrics, stated: Children, elderly individuals, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations cannot - and should not - be expected to negotiate motorized traffic on sidewalks, trails and other walkways.

Given the un-addressed safety concerns in the current legislation, those of us in the safety community are left regrettably with little choice but to oppose the passage of this bill as is currently written. The following organizations have taken a position against SB23 1 and HB5O1 as currently written: the Ohio Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Ohio SAFE KIDS Coalition, Central Ohio SAFE KIDS Coalition, Ohio Chapter of the Emergency Nurses Association, Ohio Public Health Association, Ohio Society of Trauma Nurse Coordinators, Ohio Childrens Hospitals Association, Childrens Hospital of Columbus, and the Brain Injury Association of Ohio. We respectively request that the Committee not pass this bill as currently written. We would be happy to work with the authors and interested parties to develop a modified bill that will allow for the introduction of this new promising technology in a way that safeguards Ohioans, especially Ohios children, against potential injury. In this manner, the potential exciting benefits offered by this revolutionary transportation device can be realized without unnecessary risk of preventable injury. Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Revised May 7, 2002

For more information about pedestrian safety and the American Council of the Blind, visit their Pedestrian Safety Pages.

Here is the list of states that have had action on the Segway either passed or denied.

State Legislation

Last Updated 8/2/02:

• Alabama HB 84
  (DIED IN HOUSE)
  Alabama SB 74
  (DIED IN COMMITTEE)
• Arizona HB 2497
  (TO 3RD READING IN HOUSE COMMITTEE)
  Arizona SB 1193
  (ENACTED 4/4/02)
• California SB 1918
  (Hearing Postponed by Committee on Appropriations)
• Connecticut SB 422
  (DIED IN COMMITTEE)
• Delaware HB 473
  (ENACTED 6/30/02)
• Florida SB 2454
  (DIED IN MESSAGES)
• Georgia SB 397
  (DIED IN COMMITTEE)
• Hawaii HB 2031
  (DIED IN COMMITTEE)
  Hawaii SB 2601
  (DIED IN COMMITTEE)
• Idaho HB 550
  (ENACTED 3/21/02)
• Illinois HB 5610
  (TO GOVERNOR)
• Indiana SB 401
  (ENACTED 3/28/02)
• Iowa SF 2192
  (ENACTED 4/4/02)
• Kansas HB 2663 Massachusetts HB 5127
  (IN COMMITTEE)
• Maryland HB 869
  (ENACTED 5/16/02)
• Michigan SB 1016
  (ENACTED 7/2/02)
• Minnesota HB 2882
  (ENACTED 3/26/02)
  Minnesota SB 3122
  (DIED IN COMMITTEE)
• Missouri HB 1746
  (DIED IN COMMITTEE)
  Missouri SB 1098
  (DIED IN COMMITTEE)
• Nebraska LB 1105
  (ENACTED 4/19/02)
• New Hampshire SB 385
  (ENACTED 2/15/02)
• New Jersey A 2471
  (IN COMMITTEE)
  New Jersey AB 3984
  (ENACTED 1/8/02)
• New Mexico HB 298
  (ENACTED 3/4/02)
• North Carolina SB 1144
  (IN COMMITTEE)
• Ohio SB 231
  (ENACTED 7/25/02)
• Oklahoma SB 1473
  (ENACTED 4/11/02)
• Pennsylvania SB 1225
  (ENACTED 7/4/02)
• Rhode Island HB 7271
  (ENACTED 6/15/02)
  Rhode Island SB 2585
  (ENACTED 6/28/02)
• South Carolina HB 4954
  (ENACTED 6/5/02)
• South Dakota HB 1211
  (ENACTED 2/24/02)
• Tennessee HB 2539
  (ENACTED 5/8/02)
• Vermont SB 297
  (ENACTED 5/1/02)
• Virginia HB 905
  (ENACTED 3/27/02)
• Washington HB 2417
  (DIED IN COMMITTEE)
  Washington SB 6316
  (ENACTED 3/29/02)
• West Virginia HB 4514
  (DIED IN COMMITTEE)
  West Virginia SB 682
  (ENACTED 4/24/02)
• Wisconsin AB 782
  (DIED IN COMMITTEE)
  Wisconsin SB 393
  (ENACTED 4/18/02)

For more information about state laws, visit the GDUI State Law Center.

Contact the GDUI Advocacy Committee.

Contact the GDUI Legislative Committee.

Iowa ACB Access Case

One of the most important functions of GDUI is our ability to advocate for people who are blind and work with guide dogs. On November 26, 2003, GDUI joined with four guide dog training schools to file a complaint with the United States Department of Justice on behalf of Ms. Stephanie Dohmen against the Iowa Department for the Blind. These pages contain materials and audio programs involving this nationally significant case.

Dohman Case Materials

Special Thanks
GDUI Position Paper
Press Release
ADA Complaint
ACB Radio Interviews
For More Information

Special Thanks

The Officers, Board of Directors and Membership of Guide Dog Users, Inc. wish to thank the Guide Dog foundation for the Blind, Guiding eyes for the Blind, Leader Dogs for the Blind and Southeastern Guide Dogs for signing on with us in our complaint to the Department of Justice. Fidelco Guide Dog Foundation, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Guide Dogs of the Desert, Kansas Specialty Dogs and The Seeing eye have also sent letters of support to the Department of Justice regarding this case. We thank the guide dog schools for their continued support of the rights of blind people to use their mobility aid of choice.

GDUI also thanks the staff of the ACB National Office for their assistance in preparing and hand-delivering our complaint to the Department of Justice. Their consultation and support mean a great deal to our organization. They are to be credited for their professionalism and service to blind people who work with guide dogs.

GDUI Position Paper

The Advocacy and Legislative Committees of Guide dog Users, Inc. have prepared a position paper regarding discrimination in rehabilitation programs based on the presence of a guide dog. Please feel free to copy this paper for use within your own state or local situation.

Press Release

The following press release was sent out by GDUI with assistance from the national office staff of the American Council of the Blind.

GUIDE DOG USERS AND TRAINING SCHOOLS FILE FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST IOWA DEPARTMENT FOR THE BLIND

For Immediate Release
November 26, 2002

For Further Information, Contact:
Sheila Styron
Director, Public Relations
Guide Dog Users, Inc.
pr@gdui.org

Guide Dog Users, Incorporated (GDUI), an affiliate of the American Council of the Blind and the largest organized group of guide dog users in the world, is filing a formal complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, against discriminatory practices in various rehabilitation agencies as evidenced in this case by the Iowa Department for the Blind. The department, the complaint states, is violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, by denying rehabilitation training to Stephanie Dohmen, who seeks to attend computer training classes with her guide dog. Several guide dog training schools, including Leader Dogs for the Blind of Rochester, Mich.; Guiding Eyes for the Blind of Yorktown Heights, N.Y.; Southeastern Guide Dogs of Palmetto, Fla., and the Guide Dog Foundation of Smithtown, N.Y., have also joined the complaint.

The blind woman who applied and was accepted by the department in Iowa, arrived at the department on June 5, accompanied by her Leader dog, to attend a computer training course. Ms. Dohmen was turned away by Alan Harris, director of the state's Department for the Blind and told that she could not attend the class if she was accompanied by her Leader dog. Harris said that blind people are only allowed to travel with long mobility canes while attending the center.

"The dog is Ms. Dohmen's mobility aid," explains Sheila Styron of Los Angeles, Calif., Director of Public Relations for GDUI. "The guide dog is just as valid in terms of allowing Ms. Dohmen to move freely through her environment as a long white mobility cane. It is unbelievable that an agency which receives federal and state money to provide rehabilitation training to blind consumers would deny one of those consumers the ability to travel with her mobility aid of choice."

"Supporting documentation submitted with the complaint, demonstrates that Ms. Dohmen has not only been denied access to training for which she is qualified, but has been unlawfully denied the training as a member of a protected class," said Debbie Grubb of Bradenton, Fla., President of GDUI. "We have received information from our members which indicates that similar policies may be in effect in other states such as Maryland and Texas. Therefore, we are asking that the complaint be investigated rather than referred to mediation given the national implications of allowing such unlawful policies to continue in any state where blind people may be denied their protected civil rights.

"This case is important," said Grubb, "because, when one person's rights are denied, all of us who value equal treatment under the law and freedom of choice have to worry that ours may be the next rights on the chopping block. We are proud to stand with Ms. Dohmen, who is fighting this battle for equal access for every single blind person who needs access to public facilities and has a right to receive effective rehabilitation training under the laws of our country."

The Iowa Department offered Ms. Dohmen the opportunity to attend computer training classes out of state. "Such an offer is really no choice at all," explained Dohmen. Since traveling to the Iowa Department at 524 4th Street, Des Moines, is an easy commute for her and her guide dog, there is no valid reason for forcing her to seek training outside her community, the complaint states.

Grubb says, "This is a clear violation of her rights according to any reasonable person's understanding of the meaning of freedom of choice under the definitions included in the Rehabilitation Act."

Reacting to the Iowa Department's allegation that traveling with a guide dog represents a less independent lifestyle than traveling with a long mobility cane, Wells B. Jones, Chief Executive Officer of the Guide Dog Foundation for the Blind, Inc. of Smithtown, N.Y., said, "Guide dogs increase independence and mobility for people who are blind, thereby improving the quality of life for blind handlers. A blind person and his or her guide dog work together as a team. It's a partnership for independence."

Guide Dog Users, Incorporated was founded in 1972 by dog handlers who have advocated, ever since, for equal access under state and federal laws. The organization, with members across the country, is an affiliate of the American Council of the Blind, a national membership organization of blind people with more than 70 state and special-interest affiliates, which speaks and advocates for the rights of people who are blind and visually impaired. Learn more about the ACB at http://www.acb.org.

ADA Complaint

When filing a complaint with the Department of Justice regarding a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), the specifics of the incident or set of incidents are outlined in a letter with supporting documentation. Read the GDUI complaint letter

ACB Radio Interviews

"Blind Line" is an interactive talk show airing on ACB Radio, the Internet radio station of and for blind people. Host Jonathan Mosen interviewed key participants in the Dohman case.

December 1, 2002: GDUI President, Debbie Grubb, GDUI Public Relations Officer, Sheila Styron and Stephanie Dohman join Jonathan Mosen and live callers to discuss the complaint filed with the Department of Justice against the Iowa Department for the Blind alleging discrimination.

December 8, 2002, Allen Harris of the Iowa Department for the Blind and Chris Gray of the American Council of the Blind speak on the Iowa Complaint.

For More Information

If you would like further information about the Iowa case or if you have been discriminated against by a state-sponsored rehabilitation agency for the blind based on the presence of your guide dog, please do not hesitate to contact GDUI. We need to hear from others who have faced similar challenges as those outlined by Stephanie Dohman. Our advocacy experts and Empathizers will be available to assist you. Contact Us.

GDUI Position Paper "Use of Guide Dogs in Public Rehabilitation Programs"

Prepared by the GDUI Advocacy and Legislative Committees

Introduction

The membership of Guide Dog Users Inc. (GDUI) states its position on the right to access the services of public entities without discrimination against those blind individuals who would choose to use a guide dog as their preferred mobility aid. In particular, GDUI membership believes that the use of a guide dog to attend rehabilitation programs provided within or funded by state agencies for the blind is, with only one exception, guaranteed by both the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Rehabilitation Act and Informed Choice, Self-Determination, and Personal Responsibility

The Rehabilitation Act contains an articulate expression of the accessibility policy for those public entities - including state rehabilitation agencies - that receive Federal Rehabilitation Act funding through the US Department of education. Section 2(c) of the Act says in part:

"It is the policy of the United States that all programs, projects, and activities receiving assistance under this Act shall be carried out in a manner consistent with the principles of ...respect for individual dignity, personal responsibility, self determination, and pursuit of meaningful careers, based on informed choice, of individuals with disabilities; ...respect for the privacy, rights, and equal access (including the use of accessible formats), of the individuals; [and]...inclusion, integration, and full participation of the individuals."

One of the greatest challenges for blind individuals during initial rehabilitation training Involves learning to navigate the environment with limited or no vision. All United States guide dog training programs require proof of proficiency in orientation and mobility prior to training with the dog. Once a person has become proficient enough at orientation and mobility to successfully complete training at a guide dog program, he or she may then choose the mobility aid, white cane or guide dog, that best suits his or her needs during all phases of travel. This choice must be respected and honored by all public agencies but especially those whose purpose is to promote the well-being and independence of persons who are blind if those agencies are to be compliant with the Rehabilitation Act and its principles of informed choice, self determination and personal responsibility for people with disabilities.

Americans with Disabilites Act and Equal Access

The ADA and its implementing regulations affirm the rights of individuals with disabilities to "equal access" to the services of a public entity. In part, the implementing regulations for Title II of the ADA state:

"A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity."

Similarly, the ADA guarantees that persons with disabilities be given "equality in participation" with respect to the programs and services of a public entity. From the U.S. Department of Justice's ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual:

=

"Even if a separate or special program for individuals with disabilities is offered, a public entity cannot deny a qualified individual with a disability participation in its regular program. Qualified individuals with disabilities are entitled to participate in regular programs, even if the public entity could reasonably believe that they cannot benefit from the regular program."

Exception for Fundamental Alteration

The only exception allowed under ADA to the right to use a guide dog in order to access a public entity's programs, services or activities is that to do so would "fundamentally alter the nature" of that program, service or activity. In claiming such an exception under this condition, the burden of proof that allowing guide dog use would result in a fundamental change in the public entity's offering is the responsibility of that public entity. From the implementing regulations for ADA Title II:

"A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity."

Also from the implementing regulations for ADA Title II:

"A public entity shall not impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any service, program, or activity, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the service, program, or activity being offered."

Furthermore, in making its case that its program, service or activity would be fundamentally changed by a specific alteration in its eligibility criteria, the public entity must show that its prohibition on the use of a guide dog is based on objective information that demonstrates the actual benefit of such a prohibition. Again, from the ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual:

"...the public entity must ensure that its ... requirements are based on [realities] not on speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about individuals with disabilities."

Conclusion

GDUI is disturbed by and opposed to the policies and practices of some state rehabilitation agencies that prohibit the use of guide dogs. To do so violates the letter and spirit of the two most important United States civil rights laws for people with disabilities - the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The right of a guide dog handler to access the services and programs of public entities is guaranteed by these laws, and any restriction of that right must be supported with evidence of the necessity to do so and not simply justified by paternalistic philosophies or stereotypical concepts of what is best for blind individuals.

Return to the Iowa Case Home Page.

GDUI Iowa Complaint Letter

November 19, 2002

United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Disability rights Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530

Messrs,

Guide Dog Users, Inc., (GDUI) a support and advocacy organization of and for guide dog handlers, whose membership numbers over 1,100, and who is an affiliate of the American Council of the Blind (ACB) submits the following complaint on behalf of a citizen who is blind, in order to remedy a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This complaint is filed on behalf of Ms. Stephanie Dohman who was denied participation in a training program of the Iowa Department for the blind on the basis of the presence of a guide dog. Supporting documentation demonstrates that Ms. Dohman has not only been denied access to training for which she is qualified, but has been unlawfully denied the training as a member of a protected class which class is the object of methods of administration by a public entity aimed at prejudicially discouraging the use of a guide dog through the unlawful imposition of a biased philosophy implemented as state policy without an appropriate basis to justify it's creation or enforcement.

Based on input from our membership regarding similar policies in other states, GDUI asks that the following complaint be investigated rather than referred to mediation given the national implications of allowing the unlawful policy herein complained against, to continue in other states wherein either this policy or similar ones have been adopted. Moreover, due to the fact that the Attorney General of Iowa defends the position of the Iowa Department for the Blind, mediation would appear impossible. There is an even greater and more compelling need to resolve this issue not only in the state of Iowa, but wherever it exist elsewhere in the United States.

The facts:

1. Ms. Stephanie Dohman is a woman who is blind and has applied for and successfully completed training with a guide dog duly trained to perform guiding service by a long established school that trains dogs for this purpose. The school does business as Leader Dogs for the Blind, Inc. in the state of Michigan.

2. Ms Dohman resides at 6009 Tonka Avenue in the City of Des Moines Iowa 50312 and can be reached at that address or telephone 515-274-0792.

3. Ms Dohman is an active client of the Iowa Department for the Blind.

4. Ms. Dohman participated in the Department's orientation and adjustment to blindness program at their center, located at (give exact address), where she learned orientation and mobility skills using a cane and other skills taught at the program. This training took place between September 2000 and January 2001.

5. Ms. Dohman successfully completed training at the campus of Leader Dogs for the Blind, Inc. In Michigan and returned to des Moines, Iowa with her guide dog in February 2002.

6. Ms Dohman desired to re-enter training at the Iowa Department for the Blind’s center, with course work focused on computers. She applied to enter the training program in may of 2002.

7. Ms. Dohman reentered the training program on June 5, 2002 and was refused entry and told to meet with the Department Director the next day.

8. On June 6, 2002 the Department Director, (include full name), refused to allow Ms. Dohman entry to the program based upon her being accompanied by a guide dog which would violate the policy of the Department.

9. The Iowa Department for the Blind does not allow people participating in the adult orientation and adjustment to blindness training offered by the Department to be accompanied by or to otherwise utilize guide dogs or other service animals during program activities, under the authority of Administrative rule 9 as attached.

10. The Iowa Department for the Blind holds that participants in their orientation and adjustment to blindness program must learn to be self-reliant and independent and that the presence of guide dogs would frustrate the purpose and fundamentally alter the nature of the program by in part providing opportunity for students new with canes to start considering getting a dog. See attached Attorney General's letter to Iowa Human Rights Commission in defense of the Department for the Blind. See also video tape of Channel 17 news report.

11. The Iowa Department for the Blind has offered Ms. Dohman the opportunity to attend another training program of her choice out of state. As she commutes to the Center each day, and as she is primarily interested in computer training only, she has chosen to refuse this accommodation. .

Considerations:

1. The ADA prohibits public entities under Title II from discriminating against persons with disabilities in the provision of services of the type described herein.

2. The ADA specifically prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities on the basis of their use of a service animal.

3. The ADA prohibits methods of administration which have the effect of discriminating against classes of persons with disabilities who in this case are guide dog users.

4. The ADA creates an affirmative duty for public entities to design policies and programs free of stereotipic and patronizing attitudes, but rather based upon fact.

5. The ADA prohibits separate or special program access for persons with disabilities and only allows such as an option subject to the choice of such persons.

6. Many of the standards incorporated in the ADA have their genesis in Title V of the Rehabilitation Act. This is highly material as seen in Sullivan v. Vallejo City Unified School Dist., 731 F.Supp. 947, 958 ( E.D.Cal. 1990):

"Defendants maintain that plaintiff cannot ... establish a prima facie case, arguing that they have excluded only plaintiff's service dog from the school premises and not plaintiff herself... Defendants' attempt to distinguish between plaintiff and her service dog for purposes of admission to the school premises cannot be reconciled with either the letter or the spirit of the Rehabilitation Act. ... Because a central purpose of the Act is to prevent discrimination based on public perception of a person's handicap, deference must be shown to the manner in which a handicapped person chooses to overcome the limitations created by her disabling condition. Put simply, the statute requires accommodation to the plaintiff's handicap; it does not require that she accommodate to the views of the public about her condition. In sum, as long as the choices the handicapped person makes concerning how to effectively address her circumstances are reasonable, the Rehabilitation Act both protects those choices from scrutiny, and prohibits discrimination against the disabled person on the basis of those choices."

GDUI conclusions:

GDUI firmly rejects and repudiates the notion that self reliance and independence are only achieved in sufficient measure to justify public expense as defined by the Iowa Department for the Blind through the successful learning of long cane travel skills and use of only the long cane throughout all phases of its orientation and adjustment to blindness program. This standard used to deny guide dog users access to the program is arbitrary, subjective, patronizing and based upon a prejudicial stereotype of guide dog handlers having it's foundation in philosophical speculation that is irrelevant to the choice of consumers using guide dogs in the conduct of daily travel needs. Certainly GDUI upholds the right of any blind person to choose to use a cane for mobility; but our organization rejects any attempt to make such a situation mandatory by public agency refusal of guide dog handlers to participate in and benefit from the same rehabilitation programming afforded other blind persons.

GDUI believes that if a threshold question of demonstrated capacity to travel independently is at issue, then a guide dog handler should be provided the opportunity to demonstrate his/her ability to travel in equal measure to the expectation of the public program for it's cane travel participants. In this way, only the effective means of mobility is measured rather than simply holding guide dog handlers hostage to a philosophical set of assumptions that effectively deny consumer freedom of choice in their rehabilitation training. If, however, no measurement exists but a general policy applies to all programs regarding orientation and mobility, such general policy must be modified to reflect freedom of choice in mobility device across programs.

GDUI further condemns the denial of access for guide dog handlers to an entire range of training based upon a cane training and use requirement. Not only is there no absolute need for a person already successfully using a dog guide to go through a course of cane travel instruction, but the denial of all other needed training in areas irrelevant to cane travel in the same setting as other students is unconscionable on it's face.

Finally, the negative impact of the establishment of an arbitrary state policy that presumes the use of guide dogs to be inferior to cane travel clearly is the consequence of a policy that outright discriminates against guide dog handlers with no more justification than philosophical opinion and the heavy hand of a state agency. Blind people face the risk of intimidation, denial of services and retaliation, not to mention impingement on their freedom of choice in mobility aids as a direct result of this policy.

Remedy:

GDUI and Ms Dohman request that the Department of Justice enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act to: 1) require the State of Iowa Department for the blind to immediately bring it's policies into compliance with the civil rights of all blind persons within it's jurisdiction, 2) allow Ms. Dohman to enter the program immediately using her guide dog as her mobility aid of choice without any encumbrance or restriction not otherwise required of others, 3) enforce a standard of demonstrated capacity with respect to travel skills whether using a cane or dog, and 4) we further ask that the Department of Justice alert the U. S. Department of Education to this issue in order that they through the Rehabilitation Services Administration insure all recipients of federal financial assistance also comply with the civil rights of guide dog handlers with respect to the conduct of their programs in compliance with the ADA as well as section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Sincerely,
Debbie Grubb, President
Guide Dog Users, Inc.

Attachments:
1. Complaint of Ms Dohman to Desmoines Human Rights Commission.
2. Letter from Ms. Jean M. Davis Assistant Attorney General to Mr. Wayne L. Pelkey, Human Relations specialist at the Desmoines Human Rights Commission in defense of the Iowa Department for the blind.
3. Letter from Dr. Fred Shotz, President of the Association of Disability Advocates to Mr. John Lundquist, Assistant Attorney General at the Iowa Department of Justice in defining the ADA application to the case.
4. Letter from Mr. John Lundquist, Assistant Attorney General in response to Dr. Fred Shotz defending the Iowa Department for the Blind.
5. Video tape of news report from Channel 17 in which representatives of the Iowa Department for the blind defend their position.

For more information about this case, please direct inquiries to:

Sheila Styron,
Public Relations Officer
Guide Dog Users, Inc.
pr@gdui.org

FAQ: Interacting with a Guide Dog Team

When in Doubt, Ask the Handler!

Jump To Question:

• What is the best way to approach and greet a guide dog team?
• What do you mean by “team”?
• What are other misconceptions about guide dog teams?
• What is “intelligent disobedience”?
• What are some of the guide dog’s other duties?
• How is the dog rewarded for work?
• Are guide dogs punished?
• What do I do if I see the handler do something which looks to me like abuse?
• When is a guide dog at work?
• May I pet the dog?
• What are some of the circumstances handlers who sometimes allow petting consider before giving permission?
• May I feed the dog?
• Can I give the dog toys?
• What do I do if a dog is soliciting attention from me?
• What about asking the dog’s name?
• How do I walk with a guide dog team?
• What do I do if I see a guide dog team when I’m driving?
• Please give some tips on how to help a person who is blind with a guide dog.

What is the best way to approach and greet a guide dog team?

Always greet the handler first and the dog only after receiving permission. Identify or introduce yourself. Because most dogs work on the left, come up on the right side to distract the dog as little as possible. Wait until the team has finished the task at hand (e.g. crossing a street) to stop them for a chat. The team is concentrating on the task and should not be interrupted midstream.

What do you mean by “team”?

A team is comprised of a guide dog and its handler who is blind. It’s a common misconception that the dog does all the work, while the handler just holds on. The two work together as a team. The handler is the navigator giving the dog directions (e.g. forward, left, right), and the dog is analogous to the driver.

What are other misconceptions about guide dog teams?

1. Some people believe the handler simply gives the dog a destination, and the dog takes him/her there. As noted above, the handler gives a series of directions using gestures and words the dog knows.
2. Some assume the dog is working in harness 24 hours a day. It is more accurate to say the dog is on call 24 hours a day. Most handlers are humane people who love their dogs and don’t overwork them. When at home in familiar surroundings, handlers don’t need to have their dog in harness guiding them. With the exception of a few basic rules (like no table scraps), our dogs can act like any other dogs at home.
3. Another misconception is that guide dogs can read the traffic lights. Instead, handlers listen to traffic patterns to determine when it is safe to initiate a street crossing. When the person who is blind feels it is safe, he/she will tell the dog “forward” as a signal to cross the street.

What is “intelligent disobedience”?

Sometimes the dog sees something ahead that seems unsafe. It could be an obstacle with no clear path to get around it, or a moving vehicle of which the person who is blind isn't aware. In this case, when the handler tells the dog “forward”, the dog doesn’t obey him/her, because something does not look safe to the dog. This over-ride of a handler’s command is called intelligent disobedience.

What are some of the guide dog’s other duties?

1. The dog guides the person who is blind around obstacles. If there is no clear path for the two, the dog will stop to alert the handler of the obstacle.
2. The dog stops at street corners and at stairs. The handler usually uses a toe to determine why the dog has stopped and then identifies the steps or curb with an outstretched toe.
3. The dog stops when traffic occurs ahead of the team in streets or driveways. Only after the traffic has cleared will the dog obey a “forward” command.

How is the dog rewarded for work?

Most trainers believe that praise -- whether verbal (e.g. good boy/girl), a hug, a caress, or any combination -- is a dog’s pay check. In some situations, handlers may choose to use food rewards.

Are guide dogs punished?

Handlers are trained to use corrections to show a dog what he/she did wrong. A dog may be corrected for work errors such as missing a step or running the handler into something. A dog may also be corrected for sniffing, marking, or scavenging. Handlers usually learn what kind of correction is appropriate for a particular dog in a given situation. Sometimes it only takes a verbal reprimand to get a dog’s focus back. Other times, a quick tug on the leash gets the dog’s attention. If the dog is being corrected for a work error, the handler usually tries to rework the mistake and praise the dog when he/she does it correctly.

What do I do if I see the handler do something which looks to me like abuse?

Talk to the handler if you can and express your concerns calmly. Most handlers are confident in their techniques, will explain what just happened, and love animals enough to be grateful others want to see them treated well. If you are still not satisfied, look at the dog's harness for the name of the guide dog school, look up the number, and call the school with your concerns. City and county animal welfare organizations are a last resort, but because these agencies are often inexperienced with guide dogs, a guide dog training school is a better choice.

When is a guide dog at work?

When the harness is on the dog, it is considered at work. The dog is working whether the dog is actively guiding the handler or lying quietly at the handler’s feet. Occasionally even a guide dog may be caught causing a little mischief (after all, they aren’t perfect machines).

May I pet the dog?

General wisdom is that one shouldn’t pet a working dog without asking first, and it is a good rule to follow. Some handlers are more permissive about allowing petting depending on individual circumstances. On the other hand, some handlers don’t care for anyone interacting with their guides even when out of harness. Most handlers agree that without specific permission, touching a dog and interacting with the dog in any other way (e.g. making eye contact or calling to the dog) while the dog is in harness are at best invasions of privacy and at worst distractions which could put the team in danger. It is also worth noting that a dog who is acting distracted could earn a correction to recapture the dog’s attention.

What are some of the circumstances handlers who sometimes allow petting consider before giving permission?

1. How new is the dog?  Handlers of newer dogs want the dog to have a strong bond with them first, so for the first six months to a year, handlers of new dogs may not allow anyone to pet the dog.
2. The current environment and time. Is petting the dog going to hold up anyone else by blocking their way?  Is there food or some other temptation in the vicinity? Is the handler in a hurry and simply doesn't have the time for an interruption in travel?
3. The dog’s current psychological state. Can the dog handle petting without getting so distracted that it’s going to affect the rest of the work?  Has the dog had a bad day and either would be further thrown by petting, or conversely could the dog use a couple of calm strokes to reduce stress?
4. The dog’s posture. Some handlers only allow staged petting. That is, a dog has to remain still either sitting or lying down in order to receive pets. This allows the dog to learn that as long as he/she is still and calm, petting is a possibility. Staged petting is also helpful for when people sneak pets, because the dog is less likely to be distracted.

May I feed the dog?

This is generally not acceptable, especially without asking first. Dogs are fed consistently to maintain conditioning, and because the team goes into restaurants and grocery stores, it is crucial for the dog to be used to ignoring food as much as possible. Feeding the dog things which are not in the regular diet also has potential to make the dog sick and inconvenience the handler.

Can I give the dog toys?

Definitely not without the handler’s permission. Handlers are trained regarding which toys are safe for their dogs, and a handler must be involved in any decision to give the dog a toy and approve of the specific toy first.

What do I do if a dog is soliciting attention from me?

Calmly inform the handler this is occurring, and ignore the dog as much as possible. The handler will take care of the situation.

What about asking the dog’s name?

It’s OK to ask. Some handlers may choose not to tell you. If you learn the dog’s name by hearing the handler use it, please don’t call out the dog’s name, as it can be distracting.

How do I walk with a guide dog team?

There are three basic ways to do so, and the handler will tell you which he/she prefers in the current situation.

1. The handler commands the dog to “follow” you. This is wonderful for narrow spaces and when the person doesn’t know how to get to a destination. Always talk to the handler and not the dog. Tell the handler if you are turning right or left, and alert him/her to the presence of upcoming steps or especially narrow passageways. Leave it to the handler to give directions to the guide dog.
2. Walking a step behind the right side of the person who is blind. This is a good position when the handler knows how to get to the destination, is taking a leisurely walk with his/her dog, or learning a new route with the dog and you as back-up. This position allows you to talk to the person while not visually distracting the dog from his/her work.
3. Sighted Guide. If a person who is blind chooses to have you guide him/her, he/she will put the harness down to tell the dog he/she is not going to guide at the moment. Usually, the dog will heel on the left side, while the person takes your arm right above your left elbow. You walk a half step ahead of the team and alert the person to doorways and stairs. This is the best position if both of you want to converse. Another variation when shopping is for the person who is blind to hold onto the back of the cart while the person guiding pulls it.

What do I do if I see a guide dog team when I’m driving?

Don’t honk your horn, because the person who is blind has no idea what it means. Don’t call out -- even if you want to tell the person it is safe to cross the street. The person may not know the amount of time left in the walk cycle and plans to wait for a complete walk cycle to enter the street. And finally, please be an alert and courteous driver and do not test our dogs’ ability to quickly stop in the street by cutting in front of us. There is a rule about yielding to pedestrians who are blind for good reasons. Sometimes we may not completely recognize a particular traffic pattern. Other times we know the light is in our favor but don’t realize people are ready to turn in front of us until the team is in the street.

Please give some tips on how to help a person who is blind with a guide dog.

1. Always ask if the person would like assistance. He/She may decline, but generally if help is needed the person will coach you on the best ways for helping him/her.
2. Never grab the person, dog, leash, or harness under any circumstances. Talking calmly will usually obtain the handler’s attention. If that doesn’t work, try a very light touch on the right shoulder.
3. When giving directions, rights and lefts are much clearer than hand gestures, pointing, or, “over there.” If using phrases like “across the street,” try to identify the name of the street for clarity.