Some service animals may face Justice Department ban
By Kim Campbell Thornton
January 6, 2009
I blogged last week about Rebecca Skloot’s service animal article, which appeared in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine. It was a great look at the variety of animals that help people with disabilities, accompanied by the disquieting news that the Department of Justice is taking a second look at which animals would qualify under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Now Skloot is reporting on her blog (h/t to Emily Bazelon on Slate) that a leaked copy of the new regulations will limit the definition of service animal to dogs only. I think we can all agree that would be a miscarriage of justice and a disservice to the many people who rely on animals other than dogs for social, psychological and physical aid. To read more and to find out how to contact the DOJ, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and your House and Senate representatives, go here.
Office of Management and Budget only has fax and snail-mail, no e-mail. Otherwise, it’s not that hard, although Senator Spector (PA) does win hands-down for the most organized e-mail form. Everyone else in Congress should just buy his software!
Definately worth the time to do this — as someone with a poorly-understood disability, it’s hard enough to go through daily life without jumping through extra hoops because someone else thinks your “survival stragety” is so “weird” it should be banned — not because it’s impacting THEIR life, but because they don’t want to look beyond their initial impressions to see if there’s a rational behind it.
I think I’ve said this before (;-)) — I despise empty-headedness!
Comment by Dorene — January 6, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
Sadly, I think this has come about for two reasons. First, because there are some people who aren’t handicapped that try to gain access for their pets by lying that they are service animals, and — very sadly, that there is also a very small group of service animal owners who have very real disabilities but have animals that are not fit (usually from improper training)to be in public.
I’ve run into both — and a person who may very well need a service dog someday, they both make me unspeakably angry.
I’ve seen a “service dog” bark and urinate in the cabin of a commercial airliner. I’ve seen another lunge and snap repeatedly at a customer in a store.
Frankly, I don’t care if you’ve got an iguana or a yak. If it’s clean, polite, well socialized appropriately trained and fills your needs as a disabled person the pair of you should be allowed reasonable access (please, no yaks in the elevator). But if you’re just an entitlement-driven loser who feels an irresistable urge to take your obnoxious, co-dependent pet everywhere you go; fuggeddaboudit!
Comment by Anonymous — January 6, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
as a service dog user, i can vouch for both sides of the coin. Nobody wants an unruly dog in a tight confined space such as that on a plane, but if the dog is clean and well behaved, all the merrier.
Comment by Dogs — January 6, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
Yes, I used to know someone who had a seizure dog, at least he said it was. It was a Dachshund and it was the most ill-behaved dog I knew.
Comment by Kim Thornton — January 6, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
I think the main reason for all this legislation is that so many people abuse it. Having a disability and owning a pet does not automatically make it a service animal. I realize that a service animal that is properly trained can be very expensive, which is probably part of why it happens that way. In an article I read, they talked about a guy who brought his python on the subway because it was a service animal needed for psychological support. Give me a break. That is why I understand the dog only rule. Other than maybe a monkey or the seeing eye mini horses (which I have quams about myself), what service would any other kind of animal provide?
Comment by Nicole — January 6, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
I don’t understand how one of the owners in the NYT article can have a macaque as a service animal. I mean, I understand that she loves her macaque and that she rescued and trained him, and that’s great. However, macaques are carriers of Herpes B virus - a rare disease that may show no signs in the monkey, but that is deadly to humans. In some captive populations, as many as 70-100% of the animals carry this disease and the woman with the monkey runs a rescue, so she does risk bringing it in with new animals, if none of her monkeys are already positive.
I can see why the health department would not want an animal potentially carrying a dangerous disease in food settings - especially one that is easily spread through exposure to feces or saliva and through bites and that there isn’t a vaccine for.
Comment by Tara — January 7, 2009 @ 3:38 am
Just to add - I don’t think all non-dog service animals should be excluded, I just think some care should be taken with old world monkeys. I wish the woman in the article had found and trained a capuchin or some other non-old world monkey/other animal. It sounds like she has a real bond with her macaque, so it’s sad that he has to be excluded, but I don’t think the public health officials in her area are wrong for excluding him from his service animal label.
Comment by Tara — January 7, 2009 @ 3:44 am
I have to agree with Tara.
I also think the service horses are pretty skeezy- there’s two programs, both of which seem to exist to market their founder’s minis rather than through any great knowledge of disability issues, guide animal training, or the real needs of disabled individuals.
The largest and most reputable program training monkeys? Only trains for in-house use. They have no public access because of the disease risks and chances for aggression.
I cannot believe ANY responsible parrot owner being willing to expose such an environmentally sensitive animal to public places like restuarants and public transport.
They may exist, but in 5 years of doing research on service animals (and 4 years partnered with a SD), I’ve yet to meet or find anyone responsible with anything but a service DOG.
Other animals may make EXCELLENT emotional support animals. ESAs *can* live in no-pets housing, and have special privleges for transportation on airlines, etc. But They do NOT have public access rights.
Comment by Cait — January 7, 2009 @ 11:23 am
Why don’t they have a certification program much like handicapped license plates? A physician has to attest to your disability in Illinois in order for you to get a plate. This cuts way down on fakers and also avoids people with hidden disabilities from being excluded.
Comment by 2CatMom — January 7, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
I think there’s a lot more grey area with the need for a service animal than a handicap plate, so I think it’d be extremely difficult to determine what qualifies for a certification. If a person has severe arthritis, for example, most doctors would agree that they should have a handicap sticker, but I don’t think that’s the case with something like PTSD.
And, as for using non-dog animals, I would think that the lack of support from the government and other organizations leads to a lack of qualified studies measuring how much they do/don’t help, particularly with miniature horses. The logic for them seems sound, (live longer) but if, as you say, there are only two people pushing it, both of which just so happen to sell miniature horses, it needs to be examined further.
Comment by Christine S — January 7, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
I still remember the article I read about a “service pig” that was not allowed to fly with the passengers and the owner getting in a snit about it. WE’re talk a HUGE pig…not a small pot-belly pig. My thought at the time was.. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING???? Get a smaller service animal PLEASE. Or at least be considerate of your fellow travellers.
Comment by Annette — January 8, 2009 @ 8:08 am
Entities covered by the ADA and the Air Carriers Act have always been able to exclude a service animal that isn’t trained, or is disruptive, or is dangerous. The problem is that most covered entities have kept there heads in the sand (for other reasons) and have not taken the time to know what the rules are. Then, they come across an animal as talked about above and they go run to the Federal government to fix a problem that isn’t there.
Comment by Kurt — January 8, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
If an animal is trained to perform a specific task for the person with a disability, which assists them in remaining independent, and is not a threat or nuisance to other persons, then it should be allowed as a service animal.
There are always those who are going to break the rules…disability or not. Why penalize all persons with disabilities from using other types of service animals, because a few have disregarded the set guidelines?
Comment by Marcy — January 8, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
I’m a service dog partner and International access consultant. I have advocated for the rights of sd handlers for over ten years. Lately, the largest amount of my advocacy has been defending businesses against “fake” service dogs! They are having their clients hurt or scared by untrained dogs, their wares damaged by dogs who aren’t even housetrained, and other unspeakable behavior from these “imposters”.
I’ve been contacted by “service dog handlers” who, when questioned about their dogs’ task repitoire have no idea what I’m talking about! They’ve never gone through ANY type of formal training…just had vests slapped on them one day and decided to claim protection under the very law they were claiming protection under. These dogs either bit someone, had an “accident” in the store, or (I loved this one—) was riding in the food space of a shopping cart because it was a “balance” dog! A 3 lb. ‘balance” dog, mind you! NONE of these dogs had any training whatsoever, and every single one caused damage to, or hindered the smooth running of the establishements they were cited in—-and then they wanted ME to represent them! Instead, I turned them in, and THEY got in trouble for illegally passing of a service dog.
I would love to see at minimum a required access test be put into effect that would assure that every service dog exposed to the general public can pass (and maintain—-perhaps retesing every year) the high level of obedience that the public trusts that a service dog should have. This would eliminate many of the “fake” service dogs out there and give businesses some sort of assurance that the dogs in their establishments are, in fact, well trained canines that are there to support their handlers while remaining obedient and unobtrusive at all times.
We keep hearing about the “rights” of people with disabilities to utilize a service dog; and believe me, I’m all about maintaing those rights—-but what many fail to realize is those rights come with tremendous responsibility as well. Responsibility to have our dogs trained in advanced obedience levels and maintaining total control at ALL times, have them (and their equipment) clean and well cared for, and knowing ALL the laws (and adhearing to them) that govern service dog use. Anything less is simply not acceptable.
—Kimberly Carnevale
Canine and Abled, Inc.
Comment by Kimberly Carnevale — September 3, 2009 @ 7:22 pm