From: Mary Healy [mailto:mhealy@cityofsacramento.org]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 3:08 PM
To: irrationalx
Subject: Zoo visit

Dear Mr. irrationalx,

Your phone message was transferred to me. I believe you had the opportunity to speak with our veterinarian, Dr. Ray Wack, and it sounds like he answered your questions and concerns.

If you would like to discuss further, please give me a call.

I am sorry for any confusion or inconvenience during your visit to the Sacramento Zoo.

Mary


Mary Healy
Director/CEO

Sacramento Zoo – Wildly Inspiring!
3930 West Land Park Drive, Sacramento, CA 95822
916.808.5886 // Fax: 916.264.5887
saczoo.com // mhealy@cityofsacramento.org

The Sacramento Zoo has been an accredited member of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums since 1979.

From: Irrationalx
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 5:09 PM
To: Mary Healy;
Subject: RE: Zoo visit


Mary,
Sorry I missed your call, I was in a meeting in a meeting an unable to answer. Dr. Wack was able to smooth things over after I explained the situation. Basically, came down to 5 perfectly polite and understanding employees and one very combative one that also happened to be unaware of California access laws.

So here’s the story…
The incident began after we had paid for our tickets. We were asked to wait for a manager to explain the policy and restrictions for service animals.
In the interim, three different employees commented that service dogs in training were not allowed inside the park. The stated that only “full” service dogs were allowed in. I explained to them that in California a service dog in training and its trainer, when in public for the purpose of training, have the same public access rights as a disabled person and their service animal. All three were courteous and responded with more questions about the dog and its training. They also stated that service animals were only allowed in “some parts” of the park but did not elaborate.
Shortly thereafter a woman claiming to be a supervisor approached us. She did not identify herself by name and stated that we would not be permitted inside the park because the dog was in training and not a full service animal. I advised that this was in violation of CA Civil Code 54.1 and 54.7 as well as Penal Code 365.5. I quoted the law directly, stating that “persons authorized to train service dogs for individuals with a disability, may take dogs, for the purpose of training them as guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs in any of the places as other members of the general public [specified in subdivisions (a) and (b)].” I was unable to explain Civil Code 54.7 because she interrupted me with an interesting legal tidbit. She stated that the zoo as a private organization, and this is a direct quote, is “not subject to state and federal law” regarding disability access. I am by no means a constitutional expert or a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that is incorrect.
She continued by stating that “your organization has asked us [the park] not to allow dogs in training inside the park.” This was very interesting indeed. Especially given that our organization is based in Kansas and has never heard of the Sacramento Zoo, let alone had any direct contact with it. Additionally, the documentation provided to us by the organization (available upon request) specifically asks us to take the training dog to a “zoo” during their training period.
At this point I requested the dog be accommodated in the kennel facility the park must maintain as proscribed under Civil Code 54.7. She denied us use of the kennel facility with the rationale that a disabled person might come to the park with a service dog and request use of the kennel. Which prompted my girlfriend to ask, “what happens when two disabled people show up with dogs, do you turn one away?” She chose not to answer this, so we can only assume that your “adequate kennel Facilities” as proscribed in Civil Code 54.7(b) can accommodate only a single dog… which doesn’t really made them “adequate”.
She again parroted her unusual belief that zoo’s are some kind of sovereign state (is the zoo owned by an Native America tribe or the Vatican?) and thus not required to abide by the ADA and state access laws. She also repeated the statement that “[our] organization” had asked the zoo not to let dogs in training in. I asked if she could please identify for me which organization the dog was from? This prompted yet more drivel that that made about as much legal sense as Johnny Cochran trying to speak with a mouth full of marbles. I was quite irritated as was my girlfriend. As I was unable to communicate with her I chose to accept a refund instead. We left shortly afterward.
Please note that throughout this entire incident, the dog sat silently without moving - holding its own leash - and without any verbal or physical input from me. It came to me immediately when it was released by command. Yes that’s right, a 6 month old puppy behaved better than your ‘supervisor’.
Upon returning home I called the main office at the zoo and ended up speaking with Dr. Wack. Honestly, I feel a bit bad about this because I was beyond livid at the time. I was being as nice as I could manage but I definitely gave him “both barrels” which, now that I know he is a vet and not an administrator, makes me wish to offer my apologies to him.

I hope that answers any questions about what transpired. Additionally, if it wouldn’t be much trouble I would like to request from you a written copy of your policy toward service animals so I can sue the **** out of you. Just kidding! No but seriously, I am going to need a copy of that policy. You can give it to me or my lawyer can get it from you, whatever is easier.

Sincerely,

Mr. Irrationalx