Pages

Friday, November 6, 2009

bunnys & more bunnies mean cages & more cages!

Well we have had some busy german and giant angora here the past few months ... We bred some spectacular bunnies to produce some more show & breeding buns for our rabbitry to retain. When breeding with the intention of producing excellent show & breeding prospects to add to our own "keepers" we hang onto a lot the new bunnies till they are 4-8 months old in order to see how they are developing and so we dont sell the "pick of the litters" cause we let them go too young to get a chance to see what we were "really" selling. (this does happen sometimes...)

So as you can imagine, this means more cages need to be built, the barn re-arranged to handle these additonal cages, buying and storing more grain & more hay & more litter boxes..

Yea most of our buns use litterboxes in their cages..we put wood pellet litter in bottom and full up the pans with fresh hay daily... they sit in there and eat hay & poop! they sleep in them too... It is important to keep them cleaned daily ...
We also have had to make more hay racks to hang in the new cages, buy more feed hoppers and more water bottles and crocks for winter water too...

I love working out in the barn building cages and caring for the bunnies. It is so peacefull and nurturing.

We give the bunnies lots of attention and they know when the treats are coming around & hang on their doors till they get theirs!
5 week old litter (above)
What kind of treats do we give? cheerios, bananas, carrots, orange slices, beet greens, green beans, any stuff like that out of our huge organic gardens...the also love the dried papaya and pinapple slices sold at the co-op (no sugar added thank you)...

Ive got an order of drop pans on the way for the all wire cages im building now for us and for some customer orders...cant wait for them to come so we can seperate some of the weaned buns from their moms...
18 day old german kit-sooo cute!

Thanks for stopping by...










Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Rabbit Mansion-outdoor bunny hutch project

Hello all.

Having loved and raised rabbits for many decades now it was time once again to add/replace some of the cages here... Not being happy with the creation of the carpenters who i had purchased cages from in the past i decided to design one that had the knowlege of rabbit habbits built in!

the above is the top part of the frame for the cage i designed and made (its upside down)...
the basic schematics are shown here:
Cage lenth is 8 foot with a solid divider at 48". this seperates the cage into two seperate living areas. each 48 " area has at the outside end a 12" area that has a partial divider leading to the main area (36" area) via a large "mouse hole". the 12" w has wood walls and a wood door this area is for the mothers to have their babies (nest area). The 36" w area has a fan gal welded wire front (1x2) with a wire door complete with edge guards. water bottles and food hoppers hang on the wire area, as do the hay racks and cage cards. My cage is 30" deep and 24" H inside. the legs put the cage 24" up off the ground.

that is the frame (upside down) on saw horses... the floor is framed seperatley. after frame is complete i added 1/3" plywood roof, back, and end caps and the solid divider between the 2 seperate living areas, and also the partial dividers that seperate wire fronted main area from nesting areas.

1" x 1/2" 14 guage galfan wire is used ontop of flooring frame. plastic floor supports added with stay ties. stand is made much like a table, cage sits ontop of stand.

notice the roof is level instead of sloped. I did this so i can put wire cages stacked ontop of this cage for the kits once they are weaned & seperated from each other and their moms. Moms then go into their regular "dry" cages and the cages are then sanitized and occupied by the next bred does.
Here is my finished cage.
3 bucks on left, 3 does on right.
mom is in a cage by herself for now while i build more cages!
(so many bunnies born this spring and summer!)
Photobucket

btw, if you think i saved money by building this myself forget it! it took me weeks and hours and hours and tons of $ in hardware, wood and wire expenses... now i know why the cage making carpenters make such basic wrongly designed cages...doing it right takes lots of time and lots of money!

please dont ask if i can make one for you! i think this is the kind of project where ill need time to recover and forget how much work it was before i think ill build another...

ill stick with the 100% welded wire cage making for a while.

lol....

Saturday, July 4, 2009

RAIN


It has rained almost daily for weeks now...
My weeds are growing like mad out in the garden...
I have replanted my veggies and flowers a few times...
once due to frost in JUNE!
the others due to too much rain mixed in with the organic fertilizer causing plants to rot!

A few nice litters of angora born... so cute!!!

I have been without power or phone for a few days this week due to all the rain. The lines were hit by lightning last monday, so no dsl either...no online anything. withdrawl symptoms, call the paramedics PLEASE!

everything ok as of this am finally. (Please no more outages)!

grass is knee high, lawnmower wont go thru it without stalling since it is just too high.
maybe i should hire a farmer to hay it all!

well that's my deal for today...

THE VFA

Sunday, March 15, 2009

obsession with frame loom weaving



















want to learn more about frame loom weaving? click here for link














































Friday, March 6, 2009

NAVAJO WEAVERS. By Dr. Washington Matthews.



SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION—BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY.



Third Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution,

1881-'82, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1884, pages 371-392.











NAVAJO WEAVERS.


By Dr. Washington Matthews.



§ I. The art of weaving, as it exists among the Navajo Indians of New Mexico and Arizona, possesses points of great interest to the student of ethnography. It is of aboriginal origin; and while European art has undoubtedly modified it, the extent and nature of the foreign influence is easily traced. It is by no means certain, still there are many reasons for supposing, that the Navajos learned their craft from the Pueblo Indians, and that, too, since the advent of the Spaniards; yet the pupils, if such they be, far excel their masters to-day in the beauty and quality of their work. It may be safely stated that with no native tribe in America, north of the Mexican boundary, has the art of weaving been carried to greater perfection than among the Navajos, while with none in the entire continent is it less Europeanized. As in language, habits, and opinions, so in arts, the Navajos have been less influenced than their sedentary neighbors of the pueblos by the civilization of the Old World.


The superiority of the Navajo to the Pueblo work results not only from a constant advance of the weaver's art among the former, but from a constant deterioration of it among the latter. The chief cause of this deterioration is that the Pueblos find it more remunerative to buy, at least the finer serapes, from the Navajos, and give their time to other pursuits, than to manufacture for themselves; they are nearer the white settlements and can get better prices for their produce; they give more attention to agriculture; they have within their country, mines of turquoise which the Navajos prize, and they have no trouble in procuring whisky, which some of the Navajos prize even more than gems. Consequently, while the wilder Indian has incentives to improve his art, the more advanced has many temptations to abandon it altogether. In some pueblos the skill of the loom has been almost forgotten. A growing fondness for European clothing has also had its influence, no doubt.


§ II. Cotton, which grows well in New Mexico and Arizona, the tough fibers of yucca leaves and the fibers of other plants, the hair of different quadrupeds, and the down of birds furnished in prehistoric days the materials of textile fabrics in this country. While some of the Pueblos still weave their native cotton to a slight extent, the Navajos grow no cotton and spin nothing but the wool of the domestic sheep, which animal is, of course, of Spanish introduction, and of which the Navajos have vast herds.


--------------


The wool is not washed until it is sheared. At the present time it is combed with hand cards purchased from the Americans. In spinning, the simplest form of the spindle—a slender stick thrust through the center of a round wooden disk—is used. The Mexicans on the Rio Grande use spinning-wheels, and although the Navajos have often seen these wheels, have had abundant opportunities for buying and stealing them, and possess, I think, sufficient ingenuity to make them, they have never abandoned the rude implement of their ancestors. Plate XXXIV illustrates the Navajo method of handling the spindle, a method different from that of the people of Zuñi.



They still employ to a great extent their native dyes: of yellow, reddish, and black. There is good evidence that they formerly had a blue dye; but indigo, originally introduced, I think, by the Mexicans, has superseded this. If they, in former days, had a native blue and a native yellow, they must also, of course, have had a green, and they now make green of their native yellow and indigo, the latter being the only imported dye-stuff I have ever seen in use among them. Besides the hues above indicated, this people have had, ever since the introduction of sheep, wool of three different natural colors—white, rusty black, and gray—so they had always a fair range of tints with which to execute their artistic designs. The brilliant red figures in their finer blankets were, a few years ago, made entirely of bayeta, and this material is still largely used. Bayeta is a bright scarlet cloth with a long nap, much finer in appearance than the scarlet strouding which forms such an important article in the Indian trade of the North. It was originally brought to the Navajo country from Mexico, but is now supplied to the trade from our eastern cities. The Indians ravel it and use the weft. While many handsome blankets are still made only of the colors and material above described, American yarn has lately become very popular among the Navajos, and many fine blankets are now made wholly, or in part, of Germantown wool.

The black dye mentioned above is made of the twigs and leaves of the aromatic sumac (Rhus aromatica), a native yellow ocher, and the gum of the piñon (Pinus edulis). The process of preparing it is as follows: They put into a pot of water some of the leaves of the sumac, and as many of the branchlets as can be crowded in without much breaking or crushing, and the water is allowed to boil for five or six hours until a strong decoction is made. While the water is boiling they attend to other parts of the process. The ocher is reduced to a fine powder between two stones and then slowly roasted over the fire in an earthen or metal vessel until it assumes a light-brown color; it is then taken from the fire and combined with about an equal quantity in size of piñon gum; again the mixture is put on the fire and constantly stirred. At first the gum melts and the whole mass assumes a mushy consistency; but as the roasting progresses it gradually becomes drier and darker until it is at last reduced to a fine black powder. This is removed from the [Pg 377]fire, and when it has cooled somewhat it is thrown into the decoction of sumac, with which it instantly forms a rich, blue-black fluid. This dye is essentially an ink, the tannic acid of the sumac combining with the sesquioxide of iron in the roasted ocher, the whole enriched by the carbon of the calcined gum.





PL. XXXIV.—NAVAJO WOMAN SPINNING.


There are, the Indians tell me, three different processes for dyeing yellow; two of these I have witnessed. The first process is thus conducted: The flowering tops of Bigelovia graveolens are boiled for about six hours until a decoction of deep yellow color is produced. When the dyer thinks the decoction strong enough, she heats over the fire in a pan or earthen vessel some native almogen (an impure native alum), until it is reduced to a somewhat pasty consistency; this she adds gradually to the decoction and then puts the wool in the dye to boil. From time to time a portion of the wool is taken out and inspected until (in about half an hour from the time it is first immersed) it is seen to have assumed the proper color. The work is then done. The tint produced is nearly that of lemon yellow. In the second process they use the large, fleshy root of a plant which, as I have never yet seen it in fruit or flower, I am unable to determine. The fresh root is crushed to a soft paste on the metate, and, for a mordant, the almogen is added while the grinding is going on. The cold paste is then rubbed between the hands into the wool. If the wool does not seem to take the color readily a little water is dashed on the mixture of wool and paste, and the whole is very slightly warmed. The entire process does not occupy over an hour and the result is a color much like that now known as "old gold."

The reddish dye is made of the bark of Alnus incana var. virescens (Watson) and the bark of the root of Cercocarpus parvifolius; the mordant being fine juniper ashes. On buckskin this makes a brilliant tan-color; but applied to wool it produces a much paler tint.

§ III. Plate XXXVIII and Fig. 42 illustrate ordinary blanket-looms. Two posts, a a, are set firmly in the ground; to these are lashed two cross-pieces or braces, b c, the whole forming the frame of the loom. Sometimes two slender trees, growing at a convenient distance from one another, are made to answer for the posts, d is a horizontal pole, which I call the supplementary yarn-beam, attached to the upper brace, b, by means of a rope, e e, spirally applied. f is the upper beam of the loom. As it is analogous to the yarn-beam of our looms, I will call it by this name, although once only have I seen the warp wound around it. It lies parallel to the pole d, about 2 or 3 inches below it, and is attached to the latter by a number of loops, g g. A spiral cord wound around the yarn-beam holds the upper border cord h h, which, in turn, secures the upper end of the warp i i. The lower beam of the loom is shown at k. I will call this the cloth-beam, although the finished web is never wound around it; it is tied firmly to the lower brace, c, of the frame, and to it is secured the lower border cord of the blanket. The original distance between the two beams is the length of the blanket. Lying[Pg 378] between the threads of the warp is depicted a broad, thin, oaken stick, l, which I will call the batten. A set of healds attached to a heald-rod, m, are shown above the batten. These healds are made of cord or yarn; they include alternate threads of the warp, and serve when drawn forward to open the lower shed. The upper shed is kept patent by a stout rod, n (having no healds attached), which I name the shed-rod. Their substitute for the reed of our looms is a wooden fork, which will be designated as the reed-fork (Fig. 44, a).


fig42




Fig. 42.—Ordinary Navajo blanket loom.




For convenience of description, I am obliged to use the word "shuttle," although, strictly speaking, the Navajo has no shuttle. If the figure to be woven is a long stripe, or one where the weft must be passed through 6 inches or more of the shed at one time, the yarn is wound on a slender twig or splinter, or shoved through on the end of such a piece of wood; but where the pattern is intricate, and the weft passes at each turn through only a few inches of the shed, the yarn is wound into small skeins or balls and shoved through with the finger.


§ IV. The warp is thus constructed: A frame of four sticks is made, not unlike the frame of the loom, but lying on or near the ground, instead of standing erect. The two sticks forming the sides of the frame are rough saplings or rails; the two forming the top and bottom are smooth rounded poles—often the poles which afterwards serve as the beams of the loom; these are placed parallel to one another, their distance apart depending on the length of the projected blanket.

---------------




On these poles the warp is laid in a continuous string. It is first firmly tied to one of the poles, which I will call No. 1 (Fig. 43); then it is passed over the other pole, No. 2, brought back under No. 2 and over No. 1, forward again under No. 1 and over No. 2, and so on to the end. Thus the first, third, fifth, &c., turns of the cord cross in the middle the second, fourth, sixth, &c., forming a series of elongated figures 8, as shown in the following diagram—

fig43



Fig. 43.—Diagram showing formation of warp.



and making, in the very beginning of the process, the two sheds, which are kept distinct throughout the whole work. When sufficient string has been laid the end is tied to pole No. 2, and a rod is placed in each shed to keep it open, the rods being afterwards tied together at the ends to prevent them from falling out.



This done, the weaver takes three strings (which are afterwards twilled into one, as will appear) and ties them together at one end. She now sits outside one of the poles, looking towards the centre of the frame, and proceeds thus: (1) She secures the triple cord to the pole immediately to the left of the warp; (2) then she takes one of the threads (or strands as they now become) and passes it under the first turn of the warp; (3) next she takes a second strand, and twilling it once or oftener with the other strands, includes with it the second bend of the warp; (4) this done, she takes the third strand and, twilling it as before, passes it under the third bend of the warp, and thus she goes on until the entire warp in one place is secured between the strands of the cord; (5) then she pulls the string to its fullest extent, and in doing so separates the threads of the warp from one another; (6) a similar three stranded cord is applied to the other end of the warp, along the outside of the other pole.



At this stage of the work these stout cords lie along the outer surfaces of the poles, parallel with the axes of the latter, but when the warp is taken off the poles and applied to the beams of the loom by the spiral thread, as above described, and as depicted in Plate XXXVIII and Fig. 42, and all is ready for weaving, the cords appear on the inner sides of the beams, i.e., one (Pl. XXXVIII and Fig. 42, h h) at the lower side of the yarn-beam, the other at the upper side of the cloth-beam, and when the blanket is finished they form the stout end margins of the web. In the coarser grade of blankets the cords are removed and the ends of the warp tied in pairs and made to form a fringe. (See Figs. 54 and 55.)



When the warp is transferred to the loom the rod which was placed in the upper shed remains there, or another rod, straighter and smoother, [Pg 380]is substituted for it; but with the lower shed, healds are applied to the anterior threads and the rod is withdrawn.

§ V. The mode of applying the healds is simple: (1) the weaver sits facing the loom in the position for weaving; (2) she lays at the right (her right) side of the loom a ball of string which she knows contains more than sufficient material to make the healds; (3) she takes the end of this string and passes it to the left through the shed, leaving the ball in its original position; (4) she ties a loop at the end of the string large enough to admit the heald-rod; (5) she holds horizontally in her left hand a straightish slender rod, which is to become the heald-rod—its right extremity touching the left edge of the warp—and passes the rod through the loop until the point of the stick is even with the third (second anterior from the left) thread of the warp; (6) she puts her finger through the space between the first and third threads and draws out a fold of the heald-string; (7) she twists this once around, so as to form a loop, and pushes the point of the heald-rod on to the right through this loop; (8) she puts her finger into the next space and forms another loop; (9) and so on she continues to advance her rod and form her loops from left to right until each of the anterior (alternate) warp-threads of the lower shed is included in a loop of the heald; (10) when the last loop is made she ties the string firmly to the rod near its right end.

When the weaving is nearly done and it becomes necessary to remove the healds, the rod is drawn out of the loops, a slight pull is made at the thread, the loops fall in an instant, and the straightened string is drawn out of the shed. Illustrations of the healds may be seen in Plates XXXV and XXXVIII and Figs. 42, 44, and 46, that in Fig. 46 being the most distinct.



§ VI. In making a blanket the operator sits on the ground with her legs folded under her. The warp hangs vertically before her, and (excepting in a case to be mentioned) she weaves from below upwards. As she never rises from this squatting posture when at work, it is evident that when she has woven the web to a certain height further work must become inconvenient or impossible unless by some arrangement the finished web is drawn downwards. Her cloth-beam does not revolve as in our looms, so she brings her work within easy reach by the following method: The spiral rope (Plate XXXVIII and Fig. 42) is loosened, the yarn-beam is lowered to the desired distance, a fold is made in the loosened web, and the upper edge of the fold is sewed down tightly to the cloth-beam. In all new blankets over two feet long the marks of this sewing are to be seen, and they often remain until the blanket is worn out. Plate XXXV, representing a blanket nearly finished, illustrates this procedure.



Except in belts, girths, and perhaps occasionally in very narrow blankets, the shuttle is never passed through the whole width of the warp at once, but only through a space which does not exceed the length of the batten; for it is by means of the batten, which is rarely more than 3 feet long, that the shed is opened.



platexxxv







PL. XXXV.—WEAVING OF DIAMOND-SHAPED DIAGONALS.


[Pg 381] Suppose the woman begins by weaving in the lower shed. She draws apportion of the healds towards her, and with them the anterior threads of the shed; by this motion she opens the shed about 1 inch, which is not sufficient for the easy passage of the woof. She inserts her batten edgewise into this opening and then turns it half around on its long axis, so that its broad surfaces lie horizontally; in this way the shed is opened to the extent of the width of the batten—about 3 inches; next the weft is passed through. In fig. 42 the batten is shown lying edgewise (its broad surfaces vertical), as it appears when just inserted into the shed, and the weft, which has been passed through only a portion of the shed, is seen hanging out with its end on the ground. In Plate XXXV the batten is shown in the second position described, with the shed open to the fullest extent necessary, and the weaver is represented in the act of passing the shuttle through. When the weft is in, it is shoved down into its proper position by means of the reed-fork, and then the batten, restored to its first position (edgewise), is brought down with firm blows on the weft. It is by the vigorous use of the batten that the Navajo serapes are rendered water-proof. In Plate XXXVIII the weaver is seen bringing down this instrument "in the manner and for the purpose described," as the letters patent say.




When the lower shed has received its thread of weft the weaver opens the upper shed. This is done by releasing the healds and shoving the shed-rod down until it comes in contact with the healds; this opens the upper shed down to the web. Then the weft is inserted and the batten and reed-fork used as before. Thus she goes on with each shed alternately until the web is finished.


It is, of course, desirable, at least in handsome blankets of intricate pattern, to have both ends uniform even if the figure be a little faulty in the center. To accomplish this some of the best weavers depend on a careful estimate of the length of each figure before they begin, and weave continuously in one direction; but the majority weave a little portion of the upper end before they finish the middle. Sometimes this is done by weaving from above downwards; at other times it is done by turning the loom upside down and working from below upwards in the ordinary manner. In Fig. 49, which represents one of the very finest results of Navajo work, by the best weaver in the tribe, it will be seen that exact uniformity in the ends has not been attained. The figure was of such a nature that the blanket had to be woven in one direction only.


I have described how the ends of the blanket are bordered with a stout three-ply string applied to the folds of the warp. The lateral edges of the blanket are similarly protected by stout cords applied to the weft. The way in which these are woven in, next demands our attention. Two stout worsted cords, tied together, are firmly attached at each end of the cloth-beam just outside of the warp; they are then carried upwards and loosely tied to the yarn-beam or the supplementary[Pg 382] yarn-beam. Every time the weft is turned at the edge these two strings are twisted together and the weft is passed through the twist; thus one thread or strand of this border is always on the outside. As it is constantly twisted in one direction, it is evident that, after a while, a counter-twist must form which would render the passage of the weft between the cords difficult, if the cords could not be untwisted again. Here the object of tying these cords loosely to one of the upper beams, as before described, is displayed. From time to time the cords are untied and the unwoven portion straightened as the work progresses. Fig. 44 and Plate XXXVIII show these cords. The coarse blankets do not have them. (Fig 42.)


fig44



Fig. 44.—Weaving of saddle-girth.



Navajo blankets are single-ply, with designs the same on both sides, no matter how elaborate these designs may be. To produce their varigated patterns they have a separate skein, shuttle, or thread for each component of the pattern. Take, for instance, the blanket depicted in Fig. 49. Across this blanket, between the points a—b, we have two serrated borders, two white spaces, a small diamond in the center, and twenty-four serrated stripes, making in all twenty-nine component parts of the pattern. Now, when the weaver was working in this place, twenty-nine different threads of weft might have been seen hanging from the face of the web at one time. In the girth pictured in Fig. 44 five different threads of woof are shown depending from the loom.



Then the web is so nearly finished that the batten can no longer be inserted in the warp, slender rods are placed in the shed, while the weft is passed with increased difficulty on the end of a delicate splinter and the reed-fork alone presses the warp home. Later it becomes necessary to remove even the rod and the shed; then the alternate threads are separated by a slender stick worked in tediously between them, and two threads of woof are [Pg 383] inserted—one above and the other below the stick. The very last thread is sometimes put in with a darning needle. The weaving of the last three inches requires more labor than any foot of the previous work.


In Figs. 49, 50, 51, 52, and 53 it will be seen that there are small fringes or tassels at the corners of the blankets; these are made of the redundant ends of the four border-cords (i.e., the portions of the cord by which they were tied to the beams), either simply tied together or secured in the web with a few stitches.


The above is a description of the simplest mechanism by which the Navajos make their blankets; but in manufacturing diagonals, sashes, garters, and hair-bands the mechanism is much more complicated.


§ VII. For making diagonals the warp is divided into four sheds; the uppermost one of these is provided with a shed-rod, the others are supplied with healds. I will number the healds and sheds from below upwards. The following diagram shows how the threads of the warp are arranged in the healds and on the rod.

fig45



Fig. 45.—Diagram showing arrangement of threads of the warp in the healds and on the rod.










Fig. 46.—Weaving of saddle-girth.



When the weaver wishes the diagonal ridges to run upwards from right to left, she opens the sheds in regular order from below upwards thus: First, second, third, fourth, first, second, third, fourth, &c. When she wishes the ridges to trend in the contrary direction she opens the sheds in the inverse order. I found it convenient to take my illustrations of this mode of weaving from a girth. In Figs. 44 and 46 the mechanism is plainly shown. The lowest (first) shed is opened and the first set of healds drawn forward. The rings of the girth take the place of the beams of the loom.

There is a variety of diagonal weaving practiced by the Navajos which produces diamond figures; for this the mechanism is the same [Pg 384]as that just described, except that the healds are arranged differently on the warp. The following diagram will explain this arrangement.

fig47



Fig. 47.—Diagram showing arrangement of helds in diagonal weaving.


To make the most approved series of diamonds the sheds are opened twice in the direct order (i.e., from below upwards) and twice in the inverse order, thus: First, second, third, fourth, first, second, third, fourth, third, second, first, fourth, third, second, first, fourth, and so on. If this order is departed from the figures become irregular. If the weaver continues more than twice consecutively in either order, a row of V-shaped figures is formed, thus: VVVV. Plate XXXV represents a woman weaving a blanket of this pattern, and Fig. 48 shows a portion of a blanket which is part plain diagonal and part diamond.






fig48















Fig. 48.—Diagonal cloth.
§ VIII. I have heretofore spoken of the Navajo weavers always as of the feminine gender because the large majority of them are women.[Pg 385] There are, however, a few men who practice the textile art, and among them are to found the best artisans in the tribe.






fig49






Navajo Woman Weaving a Belt







PL. XXXVI.—NAVAJO WOMAN WEAVING A BELT.














fig44






§ IX. Navajo blankets represent a wide range in quality and finish and an endless variety in design, notwithstanding that all their figures consist of straight lines and angles, no curves being used. As illustrating the great fertility of this people in design I have to relate that in the finer blankets of intricate pattern out of thousands which I have examined, I do not remember to have ever seen two exactly alike. Among the coarse striped blankets there is great uniformity.






fig49






Fig. 49.—Navajo blanket of the finest quality.










The accompanying pictures of blankets represent some in my private ollection. Fig. 49 depicts a blanket measuring 6 feet 9 inches by 5 feet 6 inches, and weighing nearly 6 pounds. It is made entirely of Germantown yarn in seven strongly contrasting colors, and is the work of a man who is generally conceded to be the best weaver in the tribe. A month was spent in its manufacture. Its figures are mostly in serrated stripes, which are the most difficult to execute with regularity. I have heard that the man who wove this often draws his designs on sand before he begins to work them on the loom. Fig. 50 a shows a[Pg 386] blanket of more antique design and material. It is 6 feet 6 inches by 5 feet 3 inches, and is made of native yarn and bayeta. Its colors are black, white, dark-blue, red (bayeta) and—in a portion of the stair-like figures—a pale blue. Fig. 50 b depicts a tufted blanket or rug, of a kind not common, having much the appearance of an Oriental rug; it is made of shredded red flannel, with a few simple figures in yellow, dark blue, and green. Fig. 51 represents a gaudy blanket of smaller size (5 feet 4 inches by 3 feet 7 inches) worn by a woman. Its colors are[Pg 387] yellow, green, dark blue, gray, and red, all but the latter color being in native yarn. Figs. 52 and 53 illustrate small or half-size blankets made for children's wear. Such articles are often used for saddle blankets (although the saddle-cloth is usually of coarser material) and are in great demand among the Americans for rugs. Fig. 53 has a regular border of uniform device all the way around—a very rare thing in Navajo blankets. Figs. 54 and 55 show portions of coarse blankets made more for use use than ornament. Fig. 55 is made of loosely-twilled yarn, and is very warm but not water-proof. Such blankets [Pg 388]make excellent bedding for troops in the field. Fig. 54 is a water-proof serape of well-twilled native wool.















fig50







Fig. 50.—Navajo blankets.





fig51















Fig. 51.—Navajo blanket.ToList















fig52






Fig. 52.—Navajo blanket.





fig53






Fig. 53.—Navajo blanket.

fig54
Fig. 54.—Part of Navajo blanket.





fig55






pg. 55.—Part of Navajo blanket.






The aboriginal woman's dress is made of two small blankets, equal in size and similar in design, sewed together at the sides, with apertures left for the arms and no sleeves. It is invariably woven in black or dark-blue native wool with a broad variegated stripe in red imported yarn or red bayeta at each end, the designs being of countless variety. Plates XXXIV and XXXV represent women wearing such dresses.





fig56
















Fig. 56.—Diagram showing formation of warp of sash.






platexxxvi





















PL. XXXVII.—ZUÑI WOMAN WEAVING A BELT.






[Pg 389]§ X. Their way of weaving long ribbon-like articles, such as sashes or belts, garters, and hair-bands, which we will next consider, presents many interesting variations from, the method pursued in making blankets. To form, a sash the weaver proceeds as follows: She drives into the ground four sticks and on them she winds her warp as a continuous string (however, as the warp usually consists of threads of three different colors it is not always one continuous string) from, below upwards in such a way as to secure two sheds, as shown in the diagram, Fig. 56.















fig57






Fig. 57.—Section of Navajo belt.





fig58













Fig. 58.—Wooden heald of the Zuñis.





Every turn of the warp passes over the sticks a, and b; but it is alternate turns that pass over c and d. When the warp is laid she ties a string around the intersection of the sheds at e, so as to keep the sheds separate while she is mounting the warp on the beams. She then places the upper beam of the loom in the place of the stick b and the lower beam in the place of the stick a. Sometimes the upper and lower beams are secured to the two side rails forming a frame such as the warp of a [Pg 390]blanket is wound on (§ IV), but more commonly the loom is arranged in the manner shown in Plate XXXVI; that is, the upper beam is secured to a rafter, post, or tree, while to the lower beam is attached a loop of rope that passes under the thighs of the weaver, and the warp is rendered tense by her weight. Next, the upper shed is supplied with a shed-rod, and the lower shed with a set of healds. Then the stick at f (upper stick in Plate XXXVI) is put in; this is simply a round stick, about which one loop of each thread of the warp is thrown. (Although the warp may consist of only one thread I must now speak of each turn as a separate thread.) Its use is to keep the different threads in place and prevent them from crossing and straggling; for it must be remembered that the warp in this case is not secured at two points between three stranded cords as is the blanket warp.














When this is all ready the insertion of the weft begins. The reed-fork is rarely needed and the batten used is much shorter than that employed in making blankets. Fig. 57 represents a section of a belt. It will be seen that the center is ornamented with peculiar raised figures; these are made by inserting a slender stick into the warp, so as to hold up certain of the threads while the weft is passed twice or oftener underneath them. It is practically a variety of damask or two-ply weaving; the figures on the opposite side of the belt being different. There is a limited variety of these figures. I think I have seen about a dozen different kinds. The experienced weaver is so well acquainted with the "count" or arrangements of the raised threads appropriate to each pattern that she goes on inserting and withdrawing the slender stick referred to without a moment's hesitation, making the web at the rate of 10 or 12 inches an hour. When the web has grown to the point at which she cannot weave it further without bringing the unfilled warp nearer to her, she is not obliged to resort to the clumsy method used with blankets. She merely seizes the anterior layer of the warp and pulls it down towards her; for the warp is not attached to the beams, but is movable on them; in other words, while still on the loom the belt is endless. When all the warp has been filled except about one foot, the weaving is completed; for then the unfilled warp is cut in the center and becomes the terminal fringes of the now finished belt.






The only marked difference that I have observed between the mechanical appliances of the Navajo weaver and those of her Pueblo neighbor is to be seen in the belt loom. The Zuñi woman lays out her warp, not as a continuous thread around two beams, but as several disunited threads. She attaches one end of these to a fixed object, usually a rafter in her dwelling, and the other to the belt she wears around her body. She has a set of wooden healds by which she actuates the alternate threads of the warp. Instead of using the slender stick of the Navajos to elevate the threads of the warp in forming her figures, she lifts these threads with her fingers. This is an easy matter with her [Pg 391]style of loom; but it would be a very difficult task with that of the Navajos. Plate XXXVII represents a Zuñi woman weaving a belt. The wooden healds are shown, and again, enlarged, in Fig. 58. The Zuñi women weave all their long, narrow webs according to the same system; but Mr. Bandelier has informed me that the Indians of the Pueblo of Cochiti make the narrow garters and hair-bands after the manner of the Zuñis, and the broad belts after the manner of the Navajos.platexxxviii




























PL. XXXVIII.—BRINGING DOWN THE BATTEN






fig59






Fig. 59.—Girl weaving (from an Aztec picture).






§ XI. I will close by inviting the reader to compare Plate XXXVI and Fig. 59. The former shows a Navajo woman weaving a belt; the latter a girl of ancient Mexico weaving a web of some other description. The one is from a photograph, taken from life; the other I have copied from Tylor's "Anthropology" (p. 248); but it appears earlier in the copy of Codex Vaticana in Lord Kingsborough's "Antiquities of Mexico." The way in which the warp is held down and made tense, by a rope or band secured to the lower beam and sat upon by the weaver, is the same in both cases. And it seems that the artist who drew the original rude sketch, sought to represent the girl, not as working "the cross-thread of the woof in and out on a stick," but as manipulating the reed-fork with one hand and grasping the heald-rod and shed-rod in the other.














Note.—The engravings were prepared while the author was in New Mexico and could not be submitted for his inspection until the paper was ready for the press. Some alterations were made from the original pictures. The following are the most important to be noted: In Plate XXXVIII the batten should appear held horizontally, not obliquely. Fig. 5 is reduced and cannot fairly delineate the gradations in color and regular sharp outlines of the finely-serrated figures. Fig. 53 does not convey the fact that the stripes are of uniform width and all the right-angles accurately made.


















Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Keeping it Green: repurpose trash into treasure-make a joural !



REUSE, Repurpose craft project for FEB 09

personal journal made from fabric scraps and cardboard

click here for directions.

Saturday, January 31, 2009

repurpose a coffee can into a nice DIY Bird Feeder!




DIY -BIRD FEEDER TO MAKE FROM OLD COFFEE CAN !







Repurpose a coffee can and metal castoffs to create a funky feeder that will keep the birds coming back for more.

Supplies:

clean coffee can with lid
paper
pencil
metal paint
painter's tape
pot lid
round metal tray or pan (4" wider diameter than coffee can)
2 dowel rods (4" longer than coffee can diameter)
punch-style can opener
awl
mallet
eye screw
ball finial
craft paint
2’ chain
quick-lock chain link
craft knife
3 washers of graduating size (the chain must fit through the holes)
heavy-duty glue
fluted duct cap
glue gun
instant-dry glue
aluminum caulk
birdseed


Steps:


1. Paint the coffee can using metal paint; use painter's tape to create stripes if desired. Also paint the tray or pan, pot lid and duct cap with metal paint. Use craft paint to paint the ball finial and dowels.

2. Make a circle template by tracing the bottom of the coffee can onto a sheet of paper. Cut out the traced circle and fold it in half three times. Rest the coffee can upside down on a work surface and tape the template to the bottom. Make a mark on the side of the can at each fold in the paper.



Figure A










Figure B



Figure C









Figure D


3. Use a mallet and awl to punch a hole through the center of the can bottom. Remove the template and use a can opener to make holes around the sides of the can at the marks (figure A). This is where the birdseed will come out.
4. Use an awl to make holes for the dowel rods, which will serve as bird perches. Make each pair of holes directly opposite each other; use the can opener holes as guides.
5. Unscrew the handle of the pot lid and remove the screw to leave a hole in the center. Punch a hole in the center of the pizza pan or tray.
6. Thread the eye screw through the bottom of the can so the eye is on the inside of the can. Place the pan or tray on the screw end, with any curved edge going toward the can. Fit the pot lid over the screw with the curve facing away from the can; this will act as a squirrel deterrent. Cap off the eye screw with a ball finial (figure B).
7. Use the quick-lock link to attach one end of the chain to the eye screw. Twist the link closed.
8. Thread the dowels through the holes in the can and secure with hot glue (figure C).
9. Cut a small X in the top of the coffee can lid large enough for the hanging chain to pass through. The fit should be snug to keep water out of the birdseed.
10. Stack the three washers and glue together with heavy-duty glue. After the glue dries, glue them over the hole in the lid. Thread the chain through the lid. The washers will help weight down the lid and keep squirrels away from the seed.
11. Use aluminum caulk to attach the fluted duct cap to the plastic lid (figure D). Let the caulk dry 24 hours. Fill the feeder with birdseed and hang it.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Disability Rights in the News, Fighting Ignorance and misinformation.

Article from NY Times-(& my comments-& US ADA laws regarding service animals)

March 11, 2008
State Says Deaf Student May Take Service Dog to School
By WINNIE HU
More than a year after the East Meadow School District in Nassau County barred a deaf high school student from taking his service dog to school, a state official ruled on Monday that the district had violated the state’s Human Rights Law.
The 21-page ruling by Kumiki Gibson, the commissioner of the Division of Human Rights, found that students with disabilities were entitled to have a service dog with them in school under state law and ordered the East Meadow district to change its policy immediately.
In a phone interview, Commissioner Gibson said the ruling set a precedent for public school districts across the state, though she currently knew of no other district where the issue had been raised. “State law provides for an absolute right to students with disabilities to use a guide, hearing or service dog in school,” she said.
The Division of Human Rights began investigating East Meadow’s policy after learning that John Cave Jr., now 15, had been denied permission to take his dog — a yellow Labrador retriever named Simba — to his classes at W. Tresper Clarke, a combined middle and high school campus with 1,500 students.
Leon J. Campo, the East Meadow schools superintendent, said that the district had reached its decision after concluding that having a dog in school would provide no instructional benefit to the student, and could pose a health risk to students with severe allergies and create safety issues during fire drills and practice lockdowns.
“We are responsible for all the students in our care,” he said. “You really have to think health and safety first, and then you educate.”
Mr. Campo said that the district housed a county program for hearing-impaired students and that none of those students had requested the presence of a service dog.
Carol Melnick, a lawyer for the district, said that the ruling would be appealed in State Supreme Court, automatically staying the order for the change of policy.
John Cave’s mother, Nancy, said that her son, who has cochlear implants, was trained to handle the dog and that air filters could be installed for students with allergies. She said that Simba accompanied her son almost everywhere, alerting him to sounds he cannot hear, like fire alarms or someone calling his name.
In January 2007, the Cave family filed a federal lawsuit against the district over the issue, seeking $150 million in damages for a violation of John Jr.’s civil rights. A federal court later dismissed the case, saying that the family had not pursued all its options with the school district.
Paul J. Margiotta, the family’s lawyer, said on Monday that the family planned to file a state lawsuit against the district within a week, claiming $150 million for violation of civil rights.

Hello Blog visitors,
what gets me is why this was handled on the state level.. It is my understanding that the ADA trumps any local or state laws in any area where they deprive or lessen the disabled rights.
Federal Laws regarding this (called the ADA of 1990) say the dog is allowed to accompany the deaf boy to school regardless of state or local law, regardless of another non disabled fear of dogs, allergies to dogs et... how would it be if suddenly your means of hearing (his was his dog) were not allowed to be used ? i find the schools dribble about dangers during lock downs or fire ludicrous as the dog is needed for the boy to know an alarm is sounding.


--------------NY TIMES SERVICE DOG BASHING CONTINUED----------

ON HALLOWEEN NIGHT IN A SUBURB of Albany, a group of children dressed as vampires and witches ran past a middle-aged woman in plain clothes. She gripped a leather harness — like the kind used for Seeing Eye dogs — which was attached to a small, fuzzy black-and-white horse barely tall enough to reach the woman’s hip.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Dilip Vishwanat/Getty Images, for The New York Times
Sadie talks Jim Eggers down when he’s on the verge of a psychotic episode.
Related
Letters: Creature Comforts (January 18, 2009)
Enlarge This Image
Jeff Riedel for The New York Times
Ann Edie and her guide miniature horse, Panda, checking out at Staples.
“Cool costume,” one of the kids said, nodding toward her.
But she wasn’t dressed up. The woman, Ann Edie, was simply blind and out for an evening walk with Panda, her guide miniature horse.
There are no sidewalks in Edie’s neighborhood, so Panda led her along the street’s edge, maneuvering around drainage ditches, mailboxes and bags of raked leaves. At one point, Panda paused, waited for a car to pass, then veered into the road to avoid a group of children running toward them swinging glow sticks. She led Edie onto a lawn so she wouldn’t hit her head on the side mirror of a parked van, then to a traffic pole at a busy intersection, where she stopped and tapped her hoof. “Find the button,” Edie said. Panda raised her head inches from the pole so Edie could run her hand along Panda’s nose to find and press the “walk” signal button.
Edie isn’t the only blind person who uses a guide horse instead of a dog — there’s actually a Guide Horse Foundation that’s been around nearly a decade. The obvious question is, Why? In fact, Edie says, there are many reasons: miniature horses are mild-mannered, trainable and less threatening than large dogs. They’re naturally cautious and have exceptional vision, with eyes set far apart for nearly 360-degree range. Plus, they’re herd animals, so they instinctively synchronize their movements with others. But the biggest reason is age: miniature horses can live and work for more than 30 years. In that time, a blind person typically goes through five to seven guide dogs. That can be draining both emotionally and economically, because each one can cost up to $60,000 to breed, train and place in a home.
“Panda is almost 8 years old,” her trainer, Alexandra Kurland, told me. “If Panda were a dog, Ann would be thinking about retiring her soon and starting over, but their relationship is just getting started. They’re still improving their communication and learning to read each other’s bodies. It’s the difference between dating for a few years and being married so long you can finish each other’s sentences.”
Edie has nothing against service dogs — she has had several. One worked beautifully. Two didn’t — they dragged her across lawns chasing cats and squirrels, even pulled her into the street chasing dogs in passing cars. Edie doesn’t worry about those sorts of things with Panda because miniature horses are less aggressive. Still, she says, “I would never say to a blind person, ‘Run out and get yourself a guide horse,’ because there are definite limitations.” They eat far more often than dogs, and go to the bathroom about every two or three hours. (Yes, Panda is house-trained.) Plus, they can’t curl up in small places, which makes going to the movies or riding in airplanes a challenge. (When miniature horses fly, they stand in first class or bulkhead because they don’t fit in standard coach.)
What’s most striking about Edie and Panda is that after the initial shock of seeing a horse walk into a cafe, or ride in a car, watching them work together makes the idea of guide miniature horses seem utterly logical. Even normal. So normal, in fact, that people often find it hard to believe that the United States government is considering a proposal that would force Edie and many others like her to stop using their service animals. But that’s precisely what’s happening, because a growing number of people believe the world of service animals has gotten out of control: first it was guide dogs for the blind; now it’s monkeys for quadriplegia and agoraphobia, guide miniature horses, a goat for muscular dystrophy, a parrot for psychosis and any number of animals for anxiety, including cats, ferrets, pigs, at least one iguana and a duck. They’re all showing up in stores and in restaurants, which is perfectly legal because the Americans With Disabilities Act (A.D.A.) requires that service animals be allowed wherever their owners want to go.
Some people enjoy running into an occasional primate or farm animal while shopping. Many others don’t. This has resulted in a growing debate over how to handle these animals, as well as widespread suspicion that people are abusing the law to get special privileges for their pets. Increasingly, business owners, landlords and city officials are challenging the legitimacy of noncanine service animals and refusing to accommodate them. Animal owners are responding with lawsuits and complaints to the Department of Justice. This August, the Arizona Game and Fish Department ordered a woman to get rid of her chimpanzee, claiming that she brought it into the state illegally — she disputed this and sued for discrimination, arguing that it was a diabetes-assistance chimp trained to fetch sugar during hypoglycemic episodes.
Cases like this are raising questions about where to draw the lines when it comes to the needs and rights of people who rely on these animals, of businesses obligated by law to accommodate them and of everyday civilians who — because of health and safety concerns or just general discomfort — don’t want monkeys or ducks walking the aisles of their grocery stores.
A few months ago, in a cafe in St. Louis, I met a man named Jim Eggers, who uses an assistance parrot, Sadie, to help control his psychotic tendencies. Eggers looks like a man who has been fighting his whole life. He is muscular, with a buzz cut, several knocked-out teeth and many scars, including one that runs ear-to-chin from surgery to repair a broken jaw. Eggers avoids eye contact in public — he walks fast down streets and through stores staring at the ground, jaw clenched. “I have bipolar disorder with psychotic tendencies,” he told me as he sucked down a green-apple smoothie. “Homicidal feelings too.”
Eggers’s condition has landed him in court several times: a disturbing-the-peace charge for pouring scalding coffee onto a man under his apartment window who annoyed him; one-year probation for threatening to kill the archbishop of St. Louis because of news reports about church money and molestations by priests in other cities (which the archbishop had nothing to do with). In describing his condition, Eggers says it’s like when the Incredible Hulk changes from man to monster. His vision blurs, his body tingles and he can barely hear. According to his friend Larry Gower, who often serves as a public liaison for him, in those moments, Eggers gets extremely loud. They both agree that Sadie is one of the few things keeping Eggers from snapping.
Sadie rides around town on Eggers’s back in a bright purple backpack specially designed to hold her cage. When he gets upset, she talks him down, saying: “It’s O.K., Jim. Calm down, Jim. You’re all right, Jim. I’m here, Jim.” She somehow senses when he is getting agitated before he even knows it’s happening. “I still go off on people sometimes, but she makes sure it never escalates into a big problem,” he told me, grinning bashfully at Sadie. “Now when people make me mad I just give them the bird,” he said, pulling up his sleeve and flexing his biceps, which is covered with a large tattoo of Sadie.
Soon after what he calls “the Archbishop Incident,” Eggers got Sadie from a friend who owned a pet store. She’d been neglected by a previous owner and had torn out all her feathers, so Eggers nursed her back to health. He didn’t initially train her as a service animal, he says; she did that herself. When Eggers had episodes at home, he’d pace, holding his head and yelling: “It’s O.K., Jim! You’re all right, Jim! Calm down, Jim!” One day, Sadie started doing it, too. He soon realized that she calmed him better than he calmed himself. So he started rewarding her each time it happened. And he has had only one incident since: he dented a woman’s car with his fist on a day when he’d left Sadie at home.
Eggers didn’t think to use any special language to describe Sadie until he tried to take her on a bus and the driver said that only “service animals” were allowed. Eggers went home and looked up “service animal” online. “That’s when it all fell into place,” he told me. He learned that psychiatric service animals help their owners cope with things like medication side effects. Eggers takes heavy doses of antipsychotics that leave him in a fog most of the day. So he trained Sadie to alert him with a loud ringing noise if someone calls, or to yell “WHO’S THERE?” when anyone knocks on the door. If the fire alarm goes off, Sadie goes off. If Eggers leaves the faucet running, Sadie makes sounds like a waterfall until he turns it off.
Eggers got a service-animal bus pass for Sadie and began taking her everywhere. (He has special insulated cage panels to keep her warm in winter.) For years, few people objected. Then, in the spring of 2007, Eggers went to have his teeth cleaned at the St. Louis Community College dental-hygiene school, and officials there told him that Sadie wasn’t allowed inside because she posed a risk to public health and wasn’t really a service animal. “All I can say is, they were lucky I had Sadie with me to keep me calm when they said that,” Eggers told me.
He filed a complaint with the United States Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (O.C.R.), which initiated an investigation. Its conclusion: the school wrongfully denied access based on public-health concerns without assessing whether Sadie actually posed a risk. (Several top epidemiologists I interviewed for this article said that, on the whole, birds and miniature horses pose no more risk to human health than service dogs do.)
But Eggers is still fighting that fight. According to the O.C.R., the school “exceeded the boundaries of a permissible inquiry” by questioning Eggers about his disability. But that didn’t change the school’s conclusion: it labeled Sadie a mere “therapy animal.” If that label sticks, it will mean that Sadie isn’t covered by the federal law that protects service animals and guarantees them access to public places.
Stories like Eggers’s involve two questions that are often mistakenly treated as one. The first: What qualifies as a service animal? The second: Can any species be eligible?
There are two categories of animals that help people. “Therapy animals” (also known as “comfort animals”) have been used for decades in hospitals and homes for the elderly or disabled. Their job is essentially to be themselves — to let humans pet and play with them, which calms people, lowers their blood pressure and makes them feel better. There are also therapy horses, which people ride to help with balance and muscle building.
These animals are valuable, but they have no special legal rights because they aren’t considered service animals, the second category, which the A.D.A. defines as “any guide dog, signal dog or other animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including, but not limited to, guiding individuals with impaired vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair or fetching dropped items.”
Since the 1920s, when guide dogs first started working with blind World War I veterans, service animals have been trained to do everything from helping people balance on stairs to opening doors to calling 911. In the early ’80s, small capuchin monkeys started helping quadriplegics with basic day-to-day functions like eating and drinking, and there was no question about whether­ they counted as service animals. Things got more complicated in the ’90s, when “psychiatric service animals” started fetching pills and water, alerting owners to panic attacks and helping autistic children socialize.
The line between therapy animals and psychiatric service animals has always been blurry, because it usually comes down to varying definitions of the words “task” and “work” and whether something like actively soothing a person qualifies. That line got blurrier in 2003, when the Department of Transportation revised its internal policies regarding service animals on airplanes. It issued a statement saying that in recent years, “a wider variety of animals (e.g., cats, monkeys, etc.) have been individually trained to assist people with disabilities. Service animals also perform a much wider variety of functions than ever before.”
To keep up with these changes, the D.O.T.’s new guidelines said, “Animals that assist persons with disabilities by providing emotional support qualify as service animals.” They also said that any species could qualify and that these animals didn’t need special training, aside from basic obedience. The only thing required for a pet to fly with its owner instead of riding as cargo was documentation (like a letter from a doctor) saying the person needed emotional support from an animal. Legally speaking, the D.O.T.’s new policy applied only to airplanes — the A.D.A.’s definition of service animal stayed the same. But for those looking online to find out whether they could take their animals into stores and restaurants, the D.O.T.’s definition looked like official law, and people started acting accordingly.
Soon, a trend emerged: people with no visible disabilities were bringing what a New York Times article called “a veritable Noah’s Ark of support animals” into businesses, claiming that they were service animals. Business owners and their employees often couldn’t distinguish the genuine from the bogus. To protect the disabled from intrusive questions about their medical histories, the A.D.A. makes it illegal to ask what disorder an animal helps with. You also can’t ask for proof that a person is disabled or a demonstration of an animal’s “tasks.” There is no certification process for service animals (though there are Web sites where anyone can buy an official-looking card that says they have a certified service animal, no documentation required). The only questions businesses can ask are “Is that a trained service animal?” and “What task is it trained to do?”
If the person answers yes to the first and claims that the animal is, say, trained to alert him or her to a specific condition (like a seizure), additional questioning could end in a lawsuit. And in many cases, according to Joan Esnayra, founder of the Psychiatric Service Dog Society, the outcome of those lawsuits depends largely on the words people use to describe their animals. “If you say ‘comfort,’ ‘need’ or ‘emotional support,’ you’re out the door,” she says. “If you talk about what your animal does in terms of ‘tasks’ and ‘work,’ then you stand a chance.”
Case in point: When the dental school questioned Eggers about whether­ Sadie was a service animal, he said she kept him “calm.” If he had said that she alerts him to things like attacks and doorbells, his case might have been stronger.
According to Jennifer Mathis, an attorney at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, “A lot of times when people with legitimate service animals lose these cases, it has to do with the fact that they don’t explain their service animals well.”
Rather than risk a lawsuit, many business owners simply allow the animals, even if they doubt their legitimacy. Then they complain to the Department of Justice that the A.D.A. is too broad in its definition of “service animal,” and too restrictive of businesses trying to protect themselves from people who fake it. Which many people do.
In October, a man in Portland, Ore., took his dog on a bus, claiming that it was a service animal. While getting off the bus, the dog killed another dog that was riding as a “comfort animal.” (In Portland, comfort animals are allowed on public transportation.) A few days later, an editorial appeared in The Oregonian with the headline “Take the Menagerie Off the Bus.” It opened with: “No offense, ferret lovers. … Your pet … may offer emotional support. But it shouldn’t be roaming the aisles of a … bus or train.” It argued that the story of the dead comfort dog was proof that people had stretched the legal definition of service animals to include a virtual zoo of animals.
Lex Frieden, a professor of health-information science at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and a former director of the National Council on Disability, sees the issue differently. “People shouldn’t be able to carry their pets on a plane or into a restaurant claiming they’re service animals when they’re not,” he says. “But that has nothing to do with what species a service animal is.” The appropriate response in those situations isn’t a species ban, he says, but rather strict punishments for people who pose as disabled. “It’s fraud,” he points out, “and it results in increased scrutiny of people with legitimate disabilities.”
In June, in an effort to clarify the confusion surrounding service animals, the Department of Justice proposed new regulations to explicitly include psychiatric service and exclude comfort animals. This was part of a sweeping revision of the A.D.A. intended to increase protection and access for the disabled, which was widely applauded. But tucked into that proposal were a few lines that worry advocates and people with disabilities: the D.O.J. proposed limiting service animals to a “dog or other common domestic animal,” specifically excluding “wild animals (including nonhuman primates born in captivity), reptiles, rabbits, farm animals (including any breed of horse, miniature horse, pony, pig or goat), ferrets, amphibians and rodents.”
This summer, the D.O.J. held a public hearing in Washington and invited anyone who would be affected by the proposed changes to argue for or against them. Many pleaded their cases in person, others by letter. The arguments in favor of species restrictions came primarily from businesses concerned about having to alter facilities, rebuilding seating areas, say, to make room for miniature horses. Several service-animal organizations and people with disabilities argued that banning reptiles and insects was fine but that excluding miniature horses and primates simply went too far. In their defense, they cited things like dog allergies, the long life spans of several species and monkeys’ opposable thumbs. After considering the arguments, last month the D.O.J. submitted a final proposal to the Office of Management and Budget. Until there’s a ruling, neither office will comment on the issue or say whether the species restriction was removed or revised after the public hearings.
Jamie Hais, a spokeswoman for the D.O.J., said she couldn’t comment on why the department suggested the species restriction. But its proposal expressed concerns about public-health risks and said that when the original A.D.A. was written, without specifying species, “few anticipated” the variety of animals people would attempt to use.
“That’s simply not true,” says Frieden, who was an architect of the original A.D.A. While drafting the regulations, he said, Congressional staff members had long discussions about defining “service animal” and whether­ a trained pony could qualify. “There was general consensus that the issue revolved around the question of function, not form,” he says. “So, in fact, if that pony provided assistance to a person with a disability and enabled that person to pursue equal opportunity and nondiscrimination, then that pony could be regarded as a service animal.” They discussed the possibility of birds and snakes for psychiatric disorders, he said, but one of their biggest concerns was that the A.D.A. shouldn’t exclude service monkeys, which were already working with quadriplegics. Since then, however, monkeys have become the most contested assistance-animal species of all.
On a rainy day in November, I walked through a T. J. Maxx store in Springfield, Mo., with Debby Rose and Richard, her 25-pound bonnet macaque monkey — one of the most controversial service animals working today. Rose was wearing brown pants and a brown-and-gold-patterned shirt. Richard was wearing a brown long-sleeved polo over a white T-shirt with jeans and a tan vest that said “Please Don’t Pet Me I’m Working.” Richard stood in the child seat of Rose’s shopping cart, facing forward, bouncing up and down, smacking his lips and grinning as Rose pushed him down the aisles.
Richard is a hands-on shopper. If Rose pointed at a sweater or purse she liked, or a pair of shoes, his hand darted out to touch them. As we passed a pair of tan, fuzzy winter boots that Rose particularly liked, Richard leaned out of the cart and quickly licked one on its toe.
People stared as we walked. “Why do you have him?” they’d ask.
“He’s a service animal trained for my disability, kind of like a seizure-alert dog,” Rose told them, again and again.
“Can I pet him?”
“He doesn’t like to be touched,” she’d say, “but you can give him five.”
People raised their hands, and Richard gave them five.
That Rose isn’t bothered by people looking and asking questions is impressive, considering that she has agoraphobia and severe anxiety disorder with debilitating panic attacks. Until getting Richard four years ago, she required heavy doses of anti-anxiety drugs just to go out in public. “I couldn’t have come in this store before Richard, let alone handled all these people talking to me,” she said. “Now I like it.”
Rose adopted Richard in 2004; he was badly neglected and near death. She and two of her six children — whom she raised as a single mother — run an exotic-animal shelter. Rose says she believes that Richard was trained as a service animal for his previous owner, an elderly woman whose son gave Richard away when she died. He had been neutered, and his tail had been surgically removed. He’d also had his large and potentially dangerous canine teeth pulled, a procedure commonly done with service monkeys for safety (and often cited as one of several ethical concerns with using wild instead of domesticated species for such jobs).
As Richard returned to health, Rose realized that he had begun to recognize her panic attacks before she did. Her doctor suggested that she train him to help with her disorder, then wrote a letter approving of him as a service animal, saying that Richard was “a constructive way to avoid use of unnecessary medications.” Rose took that letter to the Springfield-Greene County Health Department, got permission for Richard to accompany her in public and has been drug-free ever since. She ordered a service-animal ID certificate online; she even got a restriction on her driver’s license saying that she can’t operate a car without a monkey present. Now he sits in her lap with a hand on the wheel while she drives, and she never leaves home without him.
But the number of places Rose and Richard can go is decreasing. In September 2006, after receiving complaints that Richard was sitting in highchairs in restaurants, touching silverware and going through a buffet line with Rose, the Health Department sent a letter to all local restaurants announcing that Richard was a risk to public health and not a legitimate service animal. It instructed businesses to refuse him access and to call the police if Rose protested. Businesses posted the letter on their doors and in their bathrooms; soon Cox College of Nursing and Health Sciences, where Rose was attending nursing school, refused Richard access, too. Stories­ started appearing about Rose and her monkey in the newspaper and on TV. “Suddenly,” she told me, “everyone knew I had a mental disorder.”
Rose dropped out of school and filed a lawsuit against her local Health Department, the nursing school, Wal-Mart and several other local businesses that had forbidden Richard access, saying that they violated the A.D.A. Kevin Gipson, director of the local Health Department, told me that he had asked Rose to show him what “tasks” Richard performed that would qualify him. “She couldn’t,” he said.
Defining “task” is often a point of contention in these cases, especially with psychiatric service animals, whose work generally can’t be demonstrated on command. Before going to T. J. Maxx, I saw Rose begin to panic while sitting in her lawyer’s office talking about her case. Her face flushed; her voice quivered. Richard, who had been dozing in the chair beside her, leapt onto her arm and began stroking her hair. He hugged her, rubbed her ear and cooed while she talked. She immediately calmed down. “He snaps me out of it before the attacks happen,” she said. “If they start at night, he’ll turn on the light and get me a bottle of water.”
For Gipson, that’s really beside the point. “Even if Richard is a legitimate service animal,” he told me, “if he poses a public-health risk, the A.D.A. says he can be excluded. And we believe primates pose a significant health risk.”
Rose says that Richard is perfectly safe and immaculately clean. She showers and blow-dries him every day and uses hand sanitizer on him regularly, and he always wears diapers. But that doesn’t impress the Health Department. Monkeys can carry viruses, like herpes B, which are essentially harmless to them but usually deadly to humans. Those viruses can be transmitted through saliva and other bodily fluids. In 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a study titled “B-Viruses From Pet Macaque Monkeys: An Emerging Threat in the United States?” saying that 80 to 90 percent of adult macaques like Richard carry herpes B. It’s possible to test them for viruses, which Rose does every year with Richard, but those tests often give false negatives. Plus, Gipson told me, “he could catch it any time from contact with other monkeys, which we know he’s had.” Five days before the Health Department banned Richard, a local newspaper ran pictures of him and several other monkeys hanging out at Rose’s family’s sanctuary.
According to Frederick Murphy, former head of viral pathology for the C.D.C. and co-discoverer of the Ebola virus, the threat that viruses from service monkeys present to humans is essentially unknown. There have been a few cases of primate-lab workers contracting herpes B from macaques — mostly from being bitten — but no cases of people being infected by service monkeys, which are usually capuchins.
The bigger concern, according to several experts, is potential aggression. “People think monkeys are cute and like humans, but they’re not,” says Laura Kahn, a public-health expert at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. “They’re wild animals, and they’re dangerous.”
Critics of noncanine service animals tend to focus on disease perhaps because that’s the only way to legally exclude any service animal under the current A.D.A. But on the whole, Bradford Smith, former director of the University of California Davis Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, says, “I would tend to think the disease argument is really a proxy for other concerns, like having to let any person who says their parrot or horse is a service animal enter into public areas.”
Rose’s case is sometimes held up as an example of why the A.D.A. should be rewritten to exclude primates as service animals. But in fact, Frieden says, it’s an example of how the original A.D.A. works well as it was written, since it allows broad use of service animals while still leaving room to protect the public health. “Some situations have to be dealt with on a case-by-base basis,” he says. “You can’t legislate fine lines — that’s just not a functional law.”
Frieden is very clear about his belief that it would be a huge loss if concerns about specific cases jeopardized the use of all noncanine service animals, especially the capuchin monkeys trained to help quadriplegics. The capuchins attend “monkey college” at Helping Hands, a nonprofit organization in Boston, where they fetch remote controls, put food in microwaves, open containers, vacuum floors and flip light switches, all in exchange for treats. Helping Hands capuchins are captive bred, which minimizes the risk of picking up diseases, and they’re provided specifically for in-home use. The proposed species restriction might make it impossible for people to transport capuchins or keep them in their homes because of zoning restrictions. The thought of this makes Helping Hands’s founder, M. J. Willard, shudder. “There ought to be a more nuanced way if somebody just thinks it through,” she says. “Even just minor requirements of verifying the legitimacy of a service animal would solve a lot of the current problem.”
Frieden agrees. He suggests that perhaps a national committee could be appointed to develop certification standards for all service animals as well as a formal process for preventing and punishing service-animal fraud. Doing so might solve part of the controversy, he says. But not all of it. Particularly when it comes to species questions.
“Many people try to make this issue black and white — this service animal is good; that one is bad — but that’s not possible, because disability extends through an enormous realm of human behavior and anatomy and human condition,” Frieden told me. In the end, according to him, the important thing to remember is this: “The public used to be put off by the very sight of a person with a disability. That state of mind delayed productivity and caused irreparable harm to many people for decades. We’ve now said, by law, that regardless of their disability, people must have equal opportunity, and we can’t discriminate. In order to seek the opportunities and benefits they have as citizens, if a person needs a cane, they should be able to use one. If they need a wheelchair, a dog, a miniature horse or any other device or animal, society has to accept that, because those things are, in fact, part of that person.”
Rebecca Skloot teaches nonfiction at the University of Memphis. Her first book, “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks,” will be published by Crown in spring 2010.


a reader posted:
------------"What’s wrong with the way we used to bring our pets along, in their own cages in the belly of the plane?"


  • service animals are not PETS. That comment just highlights your ignorance.

Dorothy's post continues:
"Apart from all that, there is something that was not mentioned in your article — "passengers who are sealed in for hours with animals they are extremely allergic to. There’s no warning given before boarding a plane that animals will be in the cabin. I have a dangerous allergy to cat dander, and recently suffered in the extreme flying nonstop from New York to California. When my symptoms started I asked the flight attendant if there was a cat on board, and she said yes. She also said it was a service animal and there was nothing the airline could have done to deny it access. Is that fair? Shouldn’t there be special flights for those who need their animals with them, and let the rest of us travel without half-dying on the way? After all, you can’t open a window. Is there nothing that can be done for those of us with our own serious needs? Must we go to court to protect ourselves? Political correctness is going overboard in this case.
DOROTHY TRISTAN"


  • yea Dorothy, I think your comments here are totally rational, much the same way as there should be seperate pay scales for women, seperate fountains for blacks, and only men should vote or hold office. (discrimination and segregation will really improve the lives of all)


It occurs to me that those taking planes who have alergies to perfume don't ask for perfume wearers to be banned from wearing perfume DO THEY?

No they dont.

If you are going anywhere in the world outside your home it is up to you with the allergy to take a claritin or other allergy pill or nasal spray.

Hey there Dorothy, Your allergy doesn’t prevent you from seeing or hearing or walking, having a seizure or dying does it????? (retorical question)
Well those who rely on service or guide dogs could manifest the above if they were banned from having their working dogs or medical alert dog with them on a plane. Please, read the ADA laws and stop being such a prejudice anti-disabled rights person...

Hey, if alergies are your only medical problem you have to complain about then count your blessings.

  • If you had a to live with the hardships that air travel can cause for someone who has had spinal cord damage, neurological injuries, TBI, ceribal palsy, MS, blindness, deafness et.. You would be wanting your rights respected to use whatever aid you could that offered you any relief and or ability to enjoy life (in public- planes, diners, stores et) and in private. GET OVER Yourself D!