Fake service dogs give real ones a bad name — and threaten the rights of people with disabilities
By Phyllis DeGioia
March 10, 2009
“Someone came into my store with a dog she said was a helping dog for anxiety,” my friend Bev told me.
Bev owns a bridal wear/formal wear consignment shop in a small old house. The main area of the business, where brides try on long white dresses, has carpeting covered with plastic, and no one is allowed to wear shoes on the plastic in order to keep the dresses clean.
“The dog‘s paws were muddy because it was raining, and it wasn’t wearing any kind of vest or harness or anything that said it was a service dog,” she said. “I didn’t know what to do, so I explained how I don’t let people wear shoes inside and asked her if she would mind putting her dog in the car. She took him to the car, and then spent an hour in the shop. I’m not sure what I did is legally all right and I want to be sure next time. Do you know what the rules are when the dog isn’t wearing a labeled vest?”
I didn’t know. She called her local police and they said she should put up a sign (saying what, I don’t know). The police media rep for the City of Madison didn’t know either.
I went to the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) website to look for answers:
The ADA defines a service animal as any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. If they meet this definition, animals are considered service animals under the ADA regardless of whether they have been licensed or certified by a state or local government.
And there’s the key word: trained. A service dog (some in the industry prefer the term assistance dogs as an umbrella term inclusive of guide, hearing and service dogs, although the ADA refers specifically to service dogs) has to be trained to mitigate a person’s disability. If not, the dog is not covered under the ADA. Complicating the confusion is another provision:
Service dog owners do not have to prove that they need the dog for assistance or that the dog has been professionally trained or certified.
So business owners cannot ask anyone to provide certification or proof of training, even though training is the factor that makes the definitive difference. You also cannot ask why a person needs an assistance dog. If a person says he has an assistance dog and the dog behaves appropriately, businesses can’t refuse them unless the dog is not behaving (like barking under a restaurant table) or is aggressive.
So anyone who has – or pretends to have – disorders such as panic, anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder, etc. can just walk around with his or her pet and say the dog is trained and businesses have to accept them, although the lack of training would lead most dogs to blow it. If a service dog disturbs others, the dog’s owner can legally be asked to leave.
The ADA does not grant carte blanche rights to assistance dogs, but it’s close enough that people often think they do. The ADA says that in certain circumstances, service dogs are not allowed:
There may be a few circumstances when a public accommodation is not required to accommodate a service animal–that is, when doing so would result in a fundamental alteration to the nature of the business. Generally, this is not likely to occur in restaurants, hotels, retail stores, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities. But when it does, for example, when a dog barks during a movie, the animal can be excluded.
That means, for example, that you usually can’t take an assistance dog to every part of a zoo. Dogs are predators to hoofstock. When hoofstock see a dog, their fight or flight response kicks in, usually resulting in their running slam-bam into a fence. That’s why service dogs aren’t allowed in that part of the zoo. This exception tends to offend many owners of service dogs, who insist that the ADA gives them the right to take their dogs anywhere.
I called my friend Liz Palika of Kindred Spirits Dog Training because she trains some assistance dogs. She trained her husband’s dog, Riker, to assist with her husband Paul’s post-traumatic stress syndrome.
Riker is certified by the County of San Diego, has a vest and tag, and he goes everywhere with Paul. “Riker has been trained to key in on Paul and his emotions,” Liz told me. “When Paul gets angry or upset, Riker leans up against him and may even block his forward momentum by standing in front of his knees. Paul knows then to take a deep breath and calm himself. Paul has a prescription for Riker from his doctor.”
Liz agrees that the ADA has a huge loophole: if the person says the dog is a service dog and the dog behaves appropriately, businesses can’t refuse them. “The ADA is convoluted and needs reorganization because some people abuse it terribly,” said Liz. “I think we need some recognizable certification because many people are aware of this loophole, and so many dogs are not adequately trained that we will eventually lose our rights.”
“The other day my husband, Riker, and I were in a store,” said Liz. “We saw this woman pushing a stroller with a boxer in it. She told everyone within hearing range that the boxer was her service dog. The dog wasn’t even leashed to the stroller. And then he growled at Riker, who ignored him. No service dog should ever growl at another dog or anyone else while on duty.”
Toni Eames of the International Association of Assistance Dog Partners (IAADP) says that comfort dogs, sometimes referred to as helping dogs, are not trained. “Comforting you and licking your face is not a trained task. Grounding a person is not a trained task,” she says. According to IAADP:
CLARIFICATION: While a dog’s companionship may offer emotional support, comfort or a sense of security, this in and of itself does NOT qualify as a “trained task” under the ADA, thus it does not give a disabled person the legal right to take that dog out in public as a legitimate service dog. Setting up a realistic training plan to transform a suitable dog into an obedient, task trained service dog is the only way to legally qualify a dog to become a service dog whose disabled handler is legally permitted to take the dog into restaurants, grocery stores, hospitals, medical offices and other places of public accommodation.
Toni has had several guide dogs over the years, as has her husband Ed, and she is all too aware of how hard it can be to get their rights under ADA. She is also keenly aware of what is allowed and isn’t and feels that the various regulations are too loose. Toni says that what my friend Bev should do next time in her formal wear shop is first ask if the dog is a pet. If the person says no, it’s a comfort dog for anxiety, then Bev should ask, “What is your dog trained to do to mitigate your disability?”
If there is no specific training, Bev can ask them to take the dog outside. Bev can also ask service dogs to remain outside the plastic-covered area in a long down stay and not enter the area where shoes are not allowed. “If the dog interferes with your ability to carry out your business, you can ask them to leave. Bev can also ask service dogs to stay out of the plastic-covered area, but not the porch where shoes are allowed,” said Toni.
What upsets me more than I can say are the people who have no valid need for a service dog but pretend they do because they want to take their dogs on public transportation or go to the mall. If you do this, shame on you. Every time you cheat your way around this law, you erode the rights of people who truly need it.
I used to be on the board for our local service dog training organization, WAGS; I know the effort and time that goes into training one dog, and I know that the independence a service dog grants is life-altering. The ADA is a law that can be repealed and the abuse is so great that I’m surprised that people haven’t clamored to tighten it or even get rid of it.
Do not fake a disability or your dog’s training for the convenience of getting your dog on a plane; karma comes back in kind, and after an accident or diagnosis someday you may find yourself in need of an assistance dog with no ADA to protect you.
And then there’s junk like this “Service Dog Certification” website, where you can “self-certify” that your pet meets the qualifications of a service animal, and for a mere $365, get a kit that includes a vest, service animal ID patches, and a handy-dandy laminated pocket brochure about “service animals and the law”. Hmmmm.
http://bringyourdoganywhere.com/
Comment by Megan — March 10, 2009 @ 5:30 am
Thank you for this post. Sadly I have had people call to ask if I will train their dog as a service dog “so they can take them everywhere” with them. One woman, who could actually benefit from a service dog due to mobility issues, wanted me to train her elderly 3 legged small dog for her for that very reason. I refused and told her that would be a misuse of service dog training. She called me again a year later with the same request. I guess she forgot what I said the first time. It is infuriating that people do this!!! I also had a run in with someone bringing a former service dog to prison visits at a facility I do a dog program at. The dogs previous disabled owner passed away and the new home thought it was just fine to bring the dog everywhere “because it was a service dog”. That may have been true but it was not for them! I don’t know what makes people think they are so entitled to misuse a valuable resource for others. And these pseudo service dogs, and their lack of training, are in danger of giving real service dogs a bad rap. Wasn’t it a self trained service dog that killed a small dog at a dog show a few years ago? I hate to say it but I think there maybe needs to be more rules regarding service dog certification and ONE certifying body to better regulate them. (which could also go a long way in educating the public business owners) This way some of these “so called” service dog groups can’t get away with this stuff.
Comment by Marie — March 10, 2009 @ 5:43 am
I have been approached multiple times by people who want me to “certify” their pet dogs as service animals — nonexistent training for nonexistent disabilities. I’m not even a service dog trainer, much less a certifying agency.
One of the most egregious was a woman who had been taking her basset on airplanes for years, and wanted to know if I could “certify” it because she had been more recently running into hassles with airline employees. (You don’t say?)
The dog was lunging, baying, jumping up and clawing through the entire conversation — which was not long, and did not go the way the pet owner wanted it to — and to cap it, the dog REEKED. Not a “Oh I just now rolled in something reek,” but that deep-down stench that only comes from a never-bathed hound in ill health. My eyes were watering, and we were outdoors on a cool night.
I’ve gotten rather short about people who appear to believe that being neurotic and entitled is a disability (perhaps, but not under the ADA).
The vagueness of the ADA (and its subsequent interpretive rules) are partly to blame. We now have people who truly think a “therapy dog” is the same thing as a service dog, and any dog that makes them feel warm and fuzzy is a “therapy dog.”
The ADA needs to put teeth in the law. Mandatory certification that shows that the owner has a genuine disability, that the animal has training to mitigate that disability — and actually does so — and that the animal is well-behaved enough to pose no disruption or danger to the public. One ID card for everyone who qualifies, and severe penalties for those who misuse it.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 10, 2009 @ 5:50 am
Great post! Just like to add that stores etc. do not need to allow dirty dogs. I had planned an outing with my autism assist lab in training and didn’t go due to too much mud and yuck weather.
I think in the case of the bridal shop, depending on the task the dog served, a down stay may not have worked. Just putting that out there.
The sign here at Lowes says ” Service dogs welcome. Pet dogs not allowed” (or something like that). There is also a state by state law about service dogs in training. Specially trained trainers are granted the same access through the ADA in some states. Maine is one of them, but I never push it. If I had a nickel for everyone who took a training class wanting public access I would be rich. Of the many many many people who have come to me to train their own service dog, only 1 has been successful.(Shout out to Barley!) It is possible, but much more work than people imagine. After they are certified, the dog’s training never stops. There is a reason service dogs are so expensive, it is tons of work!
and H— agreed-people do think service dogs and therapy dogs are the same thing
Comment by Nancy Freedman-Smith CPDT — March 10, 2009 @ 6:31 am
If my friend the police office passes away, can I carry around his gun and taser everywhere I go cos they used to be used in service of the community?
Comment by YesBiscuit! — March 10, 2009 @ 6:42 am
The problem with mandatory training certification is that it can be a lot of trouble, especially for older disabled people, or less financially well-off (which is a hurdle, even without mandatory certification). The more work it is to get assistance, the less likely it is that people will be able to do so.
Think of it a bit like spaying and neutering. When it’s low-cost, it has a higher success rate than when it’s mandatory (which also causes a whole bunch of other problems.).
An ID card listing the disability or whatever would also invalidate the ADA laws in other areas, that protect people from having to share that they have a disability or what kind it is. Those laws are in place to help prevent discrimination.
The invisible disabilities, particularly mental issues, is where the “service dog” debate gets shady to me, but it is where the other ADA rights could be most compromised.
If they could help prevent a manic episode, for example, in restaurants or stores or schools, then I really do think they should be allowed. But how can I tell that Person has ever had a manic episode. How I do know that Person is schizophrenic, or bipolar, or whatever?
I can’t, and shouldn’t, ask, because it is not my business, and it is not my right to know—but it is Person’s right to choose whether or not they wish to tell me, not to mention to their own privacy.
I’d rather have these things be abused than have them impossible or compromising privacy and other rights for people who actually need them.
All that said, I feel like the people who do fake a reason for a service animal (or park in handicap spots, or whatever) should have both of their legs broken. Then they can use their poorly-trained dogs as a service dog, while also seeing why people might have actually needed such a thing!
Comment by Christine H — March 10, 2009 @ 6:43 am
Very informative post however there is one discrepancy. The 5th paragraph from the bottom
“Bev should ask if the dog is a pet….Then Bev
should ask “what is your dog trained to do to mitigate your anxiety”. Farther up in the article it says “….you also cannot ask why a person needs a service dog”. So isn’t this rather in the same context?
Comment by VJ — March 10, 2009 @ 6:59 am
Fantastic post; it really covers the dilemmas on both sides.
I agree that the ADA needs some clarification, and without intruding on the privacy rights of people who need assistance animals, some certification process.
It would also help if our pets were allowed on planes and trains as passengers rather than cargo (I understand in Canada dogs ARE allowed on trains). I’m afraid to say that I DO know someone who takes her dog on planes as a “service” animal because she does not trust the airlines to return a live pet to her it travels as baggage. (I know the percentage of lost/injured/dead pets is tiny, but still…)
Comment by EmilyS — March 10, 2009 @ 7:24 am
Glad to have this brought up for discussion!
Comment by Lori — March 10, 2009 @ 7:41 am
Sadly I know someone who takes advantage of this situation. She owns an English Bulldog. She insists on taking the dog everywhere with her. Including when she travels. Since her dog has breathing issues he would not be safe flying as cargo. Not to mention he is over the size limit (pets that fly in the cabin must fit in a kennel that will fit under the seat ahead of you). She claims he is a service dog so he can fly in the cabin.
Her dog has had no training (not even your basic puppy class). He does appear to at least have some training though. Mostly because the little guy can’t breathe, so he rarely walks.
She admits that she has several responsible people that would all love to watch him, but she just would rather lie. She doesn’t see that it hurts anyone.
I know that all airlines limit the number of pets that are in the cabin on any given flight. Does anyone know if service animals count in that total?
Comment by Lori — March 10, 2009 @ 7:52 am
I think that public access tests are an excellent idea. Expensive training isn’t necessarily required to pass a test. If the PWD is a skilled trainer or knows someone who will help train the dog, a test wouldn’t need to cost them anything.
What an access test could do is weed out the entitlement-driven non-handicapped abusers of the program… and the small, but problematic subset of PWDs whose animals are not adequately trained. All a person should need to take the test is a note from a doctor, a dog and a leash.
IMO every team should be able to demonstrate control and manners in public. If a doctor’s cert is required to take the test - maybe they don’t need to demonstrate any more than that. I’d much rather see well-mannered dogs who really can’t do specific tasks accompany PWDs in public than allow obnoxious, lunging, barking, peeing hazards in vests create problems for their owners just to make them feel good.
There are so many problems in the existing system that I am deeply concerned that those of us* who need dogs could eventually lose our right to use them.
Like other trainers here, I regularly have to deal with pet owners with incorrect and / or inappropriate ideas about what service dogs are. The laws regarding service dogs aren’t only ridiculously vague, they’re also not well understood by the public at large. I have friends with service dogs who, because of wide-spread ignorance on access, are regularly and unecessarily harassed as they go about life with their dogs.
Requiring a public access test would set a reasonable benchmark for service animals’ behavior in public and thereby take access rights away from inappropriately trained animals. Requiring some medical cert would weed out pet owners who don’t qualify for access. A program could reduce the amount of harassment currently endured by most service dog owners by taking those hazards in vests out of the public eye. The notifications that would be required in starting such a program could also go a long way to help educate the public about proper SD etiquette. This would be an enormous boon.
*Tomorrow young Audie goes to work - quite literally - as my right hand. Facing more than a year of orthopedic surgeries and increasing mobility issues from various health problems his help will be a key factor in maintaining my independence (and what’s left of my sanity).
Comment by Janeen — March 10, 2009 @ 8:27 am
Certification won’t solve the problem any more than handicapped parking placards keep people from entirely parking in those spots (or borrowing their MIL’s placard when they’re going to the mall on Black Friday.)
That said, I’d like to see a simple national certification similar to the handicap placard program. You send in a form filled out by your doctor (which included disability and task info and a training log filled out by you and the dog’s info- dogs would have to be at least 12 months, have a certificate of health from a vet (and I’d like to see health testing to make sure people aren’t working a dog with a chronic health problem, but we’re back to the cost thing.) After that form was recieved by a central office, a local official (I’d dump it on animal control, to be honest, but a local police officer would work as well, or local HHS) would contact you, interview you (to make sure you knew your rights and responsibilities- your specific disability would actually be irrelevant on the local level) while observing your dog. Have a common sense standard - can the dog get through a basic interview and the time in the waiting room without being a nuisance, out of control, or displaying ANY form of human or dog aggression. Then require a form to be signed that is legally binding that the dog has recieved training, has no history of aggression, and that the person understands themselves to be legally disabled. (And if people lie on THAT? That’s fraud, and easy to prove.) People would recieve an ID number and a tag - and the ID number would hvae to be prominently displayed when the dog was working, making it easy to trace complaints to a single SD team. Require recertification every 2 years.
Sure, there’d be people who would have a well-trained pet and a compliant doctor and manage to use JUST the right words to get it through the central body- but it would eliminate the main part of the dogs who are actually nuisances (or worse) in public. IMO, keeping a program simple and easily accessible by filtering out the really bad dogs (while making it easy to prosecute people woh abuse the program)
These are the major hurdles I see with a national certification program-
1. Accessibility. If you’re poor and in a rural area, you may travel quite a distance to recieve basic services already. If we ask certifying bodies to be educated in the mess of what legally constitutes disabled or legally constitutes a task (beyond basic common sense descriptions), we make it expensive- those folks will need a LOT of training, and it’s highly unlikely there’s going to be enough people (and a support agency) to supply these folks everywhere in the US as needed. Program-trained dogs could, in theory, skip certification, but I’ve met some program trained dogs straight from training who any of the owner-trainers I know would have flunked out for aggression or health issues (there’s one program in particular that I’ve seen repeated issues with placing dogs with untested health, particularly hips- horrific in a dog that’s expected to do bracing and balance work!)
2. Cost - setting up ANYTHING is going to be expensive. Would it be more cost effective just to go after fakers and start fining them? In this day and age of surveillance cameras, wouldn’t it be fairly simple to prove bad behavior? (I’m not saying real SDs never act up, but it’s exceedingly rare, IMO.)
3. Prejudice - with anything on a local scale (like my idea mentioned above), a local official on a power trip could REALLY screw things up for someone with a dog of a breed they didn’t like, or a disability they considered fake. (For example, there was a local cop in a town I used to live in who considered anyone not blind to be faking their disability and not entitled to a SD; I’ve heard of other people harassed because their excellently-trained SD is an unconventional breed (there ARE legitimate small breed SDs, they’re not all comfort dogs!) or a breed perceived as dangerous (Pibbles are the first breed that comes to mind.)
This comment is already hella long, so I’ll quit here. :P I posted the link to one of my service dog forums. :)
Comment by Cait — March 10, 2009 @ 8:42 am
“Bev should ask if the dog is a pet….Then Bev
should ask “what is your dog trained to do to mitigate your anxiety”. Farther up in the article it says “….you also cannot ask why a person needs a service dog”. So isn’t this rather in the same context?
That’s my fault for writing that sentence poorly. What I meant and did not clarify is that you are not allowed to ask what someone’s disability is because of privacy. But you can ask if the dog is being trained to mitigate a disability. That way you are only inquiring about the status of the dog, not the person’s medical health. I should have said “you also cannot ask why a person is medically in need of a service dog.”
Comment by Phyllis DeGioia — March 10, 2009 @ 8:54 am
I do feel that your article needs some clarifications.
First, a business is allowed to ask three questions. 1) Is that a service animal? 2) Do you have a disability? 3) What tasks is the animal trained to perform? If the person can not give credible answers to these three questions, then the animal’s entrance may be denied.
Secondly, for the most part, a person with a service animal is allowed to go anyplace that a customer without a service animal is allowed to go. The exceptions to this rules is mainly for health reasons. (Ex. a service animal is not allowed in the public swimming pool.) By not allowing the animal on the plastic covered area of the store, the individual broke the law. Allowing the dog there would not have fundamentally altered the nature of the business; therefore, it is not an allowable exception.
Before I give my thoughts on a required certification, I would like to point out that how the ADA protects and the requirements for access to a public accommodatin with a service animal are very different for an individual with a psychriatric disorder.
Why a required certification will not work!
1. In truth, under the law, the only one capable of seeing if you meet the legal definition of disabled is a judge. We are discussing a legal and not a medical determination.
2. Each service animal must be individually trained to mitigate the tasks of the individual with disabilities. Two people with the same disability will not need the same tasks trained. So you can not have a list of disabilities and say the animals has to be able to do X Y and Z.
3. Who administers the test? If private trainers, who promises that they will not be biased towards the animals they trained? What guarantees do we have that owner trained service animal canidates get equal access to the test? Who swears that they get an equal shake? What about those that can afford to pay for the test? At the certifying location, what are the safeguards to protect my medical information, my privacy? How do you ensure that HIPPA is still being followed?
4. Logistic problem: True example.
I have a service dog for a hidden life-threatening disability. Normally, she is vested and I carry her ID. However, one day my only outing was to drive my husband to the airport and drop him off. Because I was never planning to get out of the car, I did not pick up her vest or ID. On the way home, I get a phone call that my son has been in an accident and I need to go to the ER. If I was required to have an ID with me, I would have had to drive home first to pick it up, instead of rushing to the ER to consent to his emergency care. Instead, I drove to the ER and when challenged about my SD, I responded with “She is a service animal trained to mitigate my disabilities. ” And then I listed the tasks she was trained to perform; allowing me entry with my service animal to the ER.
I do believe that no gatekeeper should be entitled to know any of my medical information including my specific diagnosis. That is very personal information.
I could go into the historical reasons that this type of identification is a bad idea. But that is for another time.
Comment by E. Williamson — March 10, 2009 @ 9:28 am
Very interesting article! It would be great if they could figure some way to tighten this up, so that it’s harder for people pawn off fake service dogs…
Comment by Natalie R — March 10, 2009 @ 9:38 am
fyi-there is a test, and it is pretty basic. The people I have seen abusing access could not pass this test.
http://www.assistancedogsinter.....sstest.php
Comment by Nancy Freedman-Smith CPDT — March 10, 2009 @ 9:43 am
this test seems very reasonable, the bare minimum for a dog to be a safe companion in public buildings, places and businesses.
Comment by JenniferJ — March 10, 2009 @ 10:12 am
While I agree that people out there are abusing these laws, let’s not persecute those of us who really, truly do have a dog that passes the Canine Good Citizen test and the Public Access Test.
If the dog is untrained, it is not a service dog. However, some of your observations here are opinions, not fact. While ‘grounding’ may not be a trained task, a dog alerting a person to an oncoming panic attack or dissociative episode/flashback (or alerting another person that the handler is dissociating or unable to function cognitively) is a task.
The handler of the dog may not be the dog’s trainer and may not be able to articulate the exact task her dog is really completing in scientific/animal behavioral terminology and will say instead, “Fluffy helps me stay grounded.”
Not all disabilities are visible. People with epilepsy, severe panic disorder, dissociative disorders, severe cases of PTSD are greatly benefitted by trained service dogs. We have our rights to privacy to not need to disclose our disability.
Comment by m — March 10, 2009 @ 10:12 am
I agree with Christine. I’d rather some people have to be asked to leave with their unruly dogs than make it harder for other people to get their dogs when they need them. It comes down to this:
“Liz agrees that the ADA has a huge loophole: if the person says the dog is a service dog and the dog behaves appropriately, businesses can’t refuse them.”
If the dog is behaving appropriately, then don’t worry about it. End of story.
Comment by Trin — March 10, 2009 @ 10:37 am
It is my understanding the “grounding” is some cases, like an autistic service dog is trained to do, is currently being reevaluated as a task. Anyone else here this?
Comment by Nancy Freedman-Smith CPDT — March 10, 2009 @ 10:49 am
Testing should be observed by a third party to measure the tasks that a service dog ostensibly mitigates for an individuals’ disability. As a trainer of dogs who have acted as service dogs, I have no more problem with this than having any trained skill measured by a third party, like the CGC, or any of the titling events offered through the AKC, UKC or other organization offering recognition of a specific skill set.
It should be no more difficult for a properly trained dog to pass an access test through a third party than it is for a dog trained to the level of a CGC to be adjudicated over by an individual that is unknown to the dog or the team.
Being able to meet a standard of measure should not be that difficult for a properly trained animal.
Comment by Linda Kaim — March 10, 2009 @ 11:24 am
>By not allowing the animal on the plastic covered area of the store, the individual broke the law. Allowing the dog there would not have fundamentally altered the nature of the business; therefore, it is not an allowable exception.
I disagree, as do Toni and Liz, even if the dog happened to be a trained service dog and not a comfort dog. The plastic keeps the dresses clean, and to get dog hair on high end clothing could render it unsalable to a person allergic to dogs.
>Not all disabilities are visible. People with epilepsy, severe panic disorder, dissociative disorders, severe cases of PTSD are greatly benefitted by trained service dogs. We have our rights to privacy to not need to disclose our disability.
Liz has trained her husband’s dog specifically for PTSD and he is greatly benefitted. The difference between his dog and the one in my friend’s store is that Liz’s dog was trained to block Paul from moving forward when he’s upset, and thus the dog tells him when he’s upset as he might not realize it. The dog of the woman in the store had no training; what ADA explicitly covers is a trained dog. When Bev said dogs weren’t allowed in the store (pets are not) the woman said she had the dog for anxiety; Bev didn’t ask her.
It’s all pretty fuzzy to those who are not familiar with the details of ADA. I think it needs clarification on many fronts.
Comment by Phyllis DeGioia — March 10, 2009 @ 11:48 am
I’m against anything that puts obstacles to unfettered access for people with disabilities to go shopping, to a movie, or ride in a cab without having to undergo interrogation by someone who lacks the background or right to make any kind of determination about them or their service dog. Someone with a service dog should be able to go where I go without any more obstacles than I encounter.
The vast majority of challenges I see to service animals are illegal, stupid, and offensive. Until you’ve spent a day with someone who relies on a service dog and seen what that’s like, it’s very easy to think this is mostly being abused by people who want to take their pets everywhere.
Yes, that does happen, but it’s NOTHING compared to the wrongful challenges, intrusive questions, and ignorance of the law on the part of businesses and the general public.
I believe in a zero tolerance approach for animals that misbehave while working as service animals, but the fact is, many of the businesses that object to these dogs aren’t doing so because they’re growling or lunging or pottying, but because they’re DOGS and they’re THERE. Add that to the discrimination against someone who has a visible disability, particularly someone in a wheelchair or with a missing limb etc?
All that said, I also worry that those who abuse access laws are simply making things worse for those who rely on service dogs, but we have to find a way to address that without putting all the burden on disabled people, who simply want, deserve, and are legally entitled to reasonable accommodation so they can do what people without disabilities do every day without the slightest thought or hesitation: live their lives.
Sure, we’re pissed off at the scofflaws. We should be. But there are times when the framing of this issue troubles me a lot.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 10, 2009 @ 11:49 am
>By not allowing the animal on the plastic covered area of the store, the individual broke the law. Allowing the dog there would not have fundamentally altered the nature of the business; therefore, it is not an allowable exception.
I disagree, as do Toni and Liz, even if the dog happened to be a trained service dog and not a comfort dog. The plastic keeps the dresses clean, and to get dog hair on high end clothing could render it unsalable to a person allergic to dogs.
Comment by Phyllis DeGioia — March 10, 2009
If you’re open to the public, you accept what walks in (well, within reason) — potential customers of all kinds. And if one of the dresses gets smudged — um, isn’t that what dry cleaners are for? (And besides, in this case these gowns are there ON CONSIGNMENT, which means they’re already been exposed to heaven knows what, and been to the cleaners once already.)
I’m sure the shop owner grits her teeth and smiles when someone walks in with small and not particularly clean children, or when someone’s fingernails don’t exactly look clean. But does she throw them out, or provide them with handwipes? This would be a question I would want the answer to, with regard to the risk to an expensive gown.
I’m also wondering: Does she insist that people who drench themselves in scent not come near the gowns, too? Because you know perfume/cologne is a trigger for many asthmatics.
To me, a “legitimate” service dog — however that is defined, and I’m not knowledgeable enough on the topic to opine — is as much a part of the person as a cane or other assistive “device.” To deny access is surely not in the spirit of the ADA.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 10, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
Hi I just wanted to say that not all dogs are unruly and wild and untrained out there in public. I have a dog who has had years of training, has a high level of obedience and therapy dog training. She has passed 4 therapy dog tests of different organizations and the CGC and ATTS tests as well. One of the therapy organizations has a 70% fail rate and most dogs take 2-3 tries before passing but mine passed on the first try. She is also very well socialized and very well behaved in public.
My dog goes everywhere possible with me—meaning she goes everywhere PET dogs are allowed. I travel with her as well so she has been to many pet friendly hotels, and we go to lots of city festivals, fairs, and pet-related events as well as dog-friendly businesses and restaurants(outdoors of course.) Many times I have had people say that they did not realize there was a dog (in the business, store, restaurant patio etc) because she was so quiet and well behaved.
I just wanted to write this because the blog and responses make it sound like all dogs that are not service dogs would be unruly and cause disruptions if taken in stores and things like that. My dog has been to many public places (where pets are allowed) and she is not disruptive or unruly. If she was I would not take her in public!
I have had people mistake my dog for a service dog, either when she was wearing her therapy dog vest or when she was just wearing a harness (esp. her seatbelt harness, for some reason people thought it was some type of service dog thing??) If someone asked me about that I would explain that she is not a service dog, she is a therapy dog.
Now as for taking non-service dogs in places where pets are not allowed, there is no excuse for that. I can understand people wanting to take their pets everywhere with them because I take my dog everywhere possible with me and we are both happier when we can be together. So I take her to as many pet-friendly places as I can. However if a place says no dogs allowed— that’s that. She is not a service dog and I do not need her for medical reasons so she has no rights to go anywhere that does not allow pets.
Comment by Nonny — March 10, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Nonny, I think you’d find many of the people here do the same — take a well-mannered dog everywhere pets are allowed.
We encourage well-mannered dogs. We own them. We love them. But the fact that well-mannered dogs actually do exist really hasn’t any bearing on this particular discussion, which is about working dogs — not pets, but dogs who assist people with disabilities.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 10, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
I have invisible disabilities, and absolutely refused to explain what my dog’s work is…that IS discrimination. Because you usually have to explain in in a way that lists your disabilities. It’s bad enough employers get to ask, which I think should be illegal. My psychiatric service animal saved my life and certification is a bureaucratic nightmare. And often could not be afforded by those living on disability.
Comment by Alise Stewart — March 10, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
Nonny - I totally agree that well-behaved pets are fantastic and should be able to go more places than they’re currently allowed.
I *do* question why she’d be wearing her therapy dog vest out in public. While I don’t think YOU meant anything negative by that, I do see people (with therapy certs, who are promptly reported by me to their certifying org!) out in public with the dogs and while they’ll say the dogs are therapy dogs if asked, they allow people to believe that therapy dogs and service dogs are in some way equivalent, and they just AREN’T.
Comment by Cait — March 10, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Frankly, the ADI test requirements are something most people who take their dogs with them should aspire to.
Pet dogs that are frequently seen by the public need to be ambassadors for good manners, their breed or type, and an example for people on how dogs should behave.
I agree also that people should not be forced to defend their ability to utilize their dog in public if they have a real need. But an untrained, poorly socialized dog can present both a real nuisance and a true danger in certain situations.
At issue here is not whether or not someone should have to prove that their dog assists them to store owners, airlines etc… But that the dogs level of training meets or exceeds a minimum standard of training and behavior. While it would be nice to standardize certification, our nation and population are simply to diverse and large to make that feasible or fair to all disabled parties.
But when people use the loophole that they cannot be asked to explain, yeah, you get abuses. If the abusers were only doing so with well trained, socialized, pleasant dogs who were unobtrusive in public, it might not be too much to overlook them for the much greater good. Bringing a dirty, dangerous untrained dog into the equation alters it dramatically. If there was an incident where a bystander was injured seriously by such an animal, then the hammer might fall very very hard and new restrictions might make it difficult or impossible for some, particularly those who have done much of the hard work and training on their own, to become certified.
I agree with the earlier comment that if airlines and trains began taking pets as passengers, it might curb much abuse of the system. And heaven knows, they seem to need the money! Right now if I want to take my dogs to say Indiana, I drive or they stay home. I would happily pay for a ticketed “seat” in the cabin to fly my dog. I would not mind if a CGC or other proof of basic training was required. I would not mind if I was restricted to redeye flights either. But the dog’s not going to go into baggage unless I run out of options.
Comment by JenniferJ — March 10, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
In no way is grounding being eliminated as a task for service dogs and children and adults with autism will not lose their right to have a service dog. the ADA has already been revised and has become more liberal. My son can not function in public without his service dog, but accompanied by Chewy he is able to live an almost normal life. Just because a disability is not visible, does not mean it has any less of an impact on someones life.
Comment by Heather — March 10, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
Bringing a dirty, dangerous untrained dog into the equation alters it dramatically.
But it doesn’t, because a service dog cannot bark or jump or do anything disruptive or dangerous, even if he is a trained dog legitimately assisting a PWD. So I think this is a slightly false issue. If the dog is doing his job and behaving, I honestly believe we need to just suck it up, while at the same time having zero tolerance for those who abuse the system.
But putting the onus on the PWD is really going to have a chilling effect on access, and that’s wrong.
Again, it’s not that I think the fakers should get away with it. It’s that we need to frame this issue carefully so as not to create barriers to access.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 10, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
I don’t want to see anyone who uses an assistance or service dog lose their access to public places or transportation, or any of the benefits that partnering with a working dog can bring, whether the dog assists them in their everyday activities or alerts them to seizures once a month. I do not think that anyone should have to explain their disability or need.
But if people who do not need a trained service animal continue to abuse the system, the chances of a serious incident involving an untrained dog increases. We are in a horribly knee jerk society (not to mention some of the radical animal liberationists who will jump at a reason to vilify service dogs)and if a serious bite, say to the face of a child, occurs, the reaction may be very very harmful to PWDs and their ability to acquire the dogs they need and their freedom of movement with such animals.
It’s a very sticky wicket. I do not have the answers. Only hope that a serious incident with a pretend dog or ill trained does not occur and continue to dissuade people who are considering abusing the system from doing so.
Comment by JenniferJ — March 10, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
We are fortunate in my area, because dogs are allowed on buses even if they are not service animals. Large dogs have to pay a fare like a person, but dogs that fit on your lap (and service dogs) ride free. I guess that kind of policy is not the norm?
Comment by Pai — March 10, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
“>By not allowing the animal on the plastic covered area of the store, the individual broke the law. Allowing the dog there would not have fundamentally altered the nature of the business; therefore, it is not an allowable exception.
I disagree, as do Toni and Liz, even if the dog happened to be a trained service dog and not a comfort dog. The plastic keeps the dresses clean, and to get dog hair on high end clothing could render it unsalable to a person allergic to dogs. “
You, Toni, and Liz have the right to disagree. However, the technical assistance line of the DOJ that deals with the ADA will tell you that you are wrong. This is not an adequate reason to limit the rights of an individual with disabilities.
BTW, allergies are not normally considered a reason to deny a service animal. (From the ADA Business Brief on Service Animals)
Comment by E. Williamson — March 10, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Opps forgot to as how do you know that it is a comfort (emotional support animal) and not a service dog. Did the individual ask if the dog was individually trained? Or are we just assuming because she did not argue?
Muddy paws in the rain, not really an indication either way.
Comment by E. Williamson — March 10, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Great post and lively discussion. How do you feel about the non-canine service animals? I agree that the abuse is making things tougher on those of us with legitimate reasons to have service animals. I’ve had 4 guide dogs over the past 38 years, and I never thought I’d live to see the day that established groups like PETA would decry the existence of guide dog programs and insinuate that blind people aren’t fit to take care of our dogs’ needs. Nonetheless, it has happened. PETA’s VP for cruelty investigations slammed us pretty good on the Los Angeles Times web site. I did an article for American Chronicle about the fall-out. If anyone wants to read it, it’s at:
http://www.americanchronicle.c.....view/93706
Comment by Donna Hill — March 10, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
The point of having an access test and *uniform identification* for those who qualify is not just — or even primarily — to weed out the fakers and incompetents.
The point is to *eliminate* the intrusive challenges to legitimate service dog owners by every restaurant hostess with a bug up her butt. And to eliminate the genuinely confusing “nuances” of the ADA as written and interpreted.
I agree that genuinely highly-trained and well-mannered pet dogs should have access many more places than they currently do. I have long supported an access test for regular dogs that would give them and their owners the privilege of many more public places. We should raise the bar for the end-point performance of trained dogs, and have a significant reward for the owners who have put in the effort.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 10, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
Regarding the small business and the plastic on the floor. Three cheers for the small shop owner!! She is also a minority and if she doesn’t want an animal (or heavily perfumed lady or unruly children) in her house she should have the RIGHT to say so!!!!!
Comment by Linda Johnson — March 11, 2009 @ 12:36 am
And if a shop-keeper doesn’t want blacks or Jews or people named Johnson in her store, is that OK, too?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 11, 2009 @ 6:32 am
Is it different than a landlord being able to say I don’t want pets or smoking in my apartment that you are renting from me? Should they be able to say that?
Hmm..is a landlord required to accept a tenant with a service dog if s/he rents out a “pet free” apartment or house?
Just throwing questions out…
Comment by Lori — March 11, 2009 @ 7:27 am
Yes, a landlord has to accept a service dog even in a “no pets” apartment. In some states, landlords also have to accept Emotional Support Animals even in “no pets” apartments.
Service animals and their owners have actual legal rights, not just “as long as it doesn’t inconvenience anyone or offend their preferences.” It is a problem, I think, that there’s no really reliable way with service animals other than guide dogs to distinguish the real from the fakers without asking illegal questions. If people with service animals had something equivalent to the handicap placard for cars, you could then know to a reasonable degree of certainty that yes, this really is a service dog, without having to know or inquire about the actual disability or what the animal was specifically trained to do.
And yes, some people would “borrow” a relative’s service animal ID sometimes and take a pet in where they shouldn’t. No system is going to be perfect. But it would make things easier.
Of course, I also would like to see a Public Access test available to pet dogs, as well. If we had a Public Access test and authorization for any animal that could pass that test, we wouldn’t have to worry at all about whether or not the animal was a service animal.
Comment by Lis — March 11, 2009 @ 7:37 am
We need to be clear on the distinction between a “service dog” and a “pet.”
A service dog is not a pet.
A property owner who does not want “pets” is well within rights to refuse a person with a pet who wishes to rent. But that’s a different matter than refusing to rent to a disabled person who relies on a service dog.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 11, 2009 @ 7:38 am
Lori, do you understand the American with Disability Act? Rights of access of service dogs are protected by law and that extends to living arrangements. Your question did remind me of the one place that I have seen the rights of (non) service dogs abused the most. That is in elderly apartment housing. Twice I was asked to train a dogs of elder women who had gone into senior housing and did not want to leave their pet. Very sad. While there I saw many dogs who were not tasked trained or trained even, upsetting the other residents. In both cases, I would not tell the owners of the building that the dogs I was working with were certified service dogs, but they (the owners) were happy the dogs were being worked with and both dogs did learn some needed hearing dog tasks,and were fine in public. Still they were far from the real deal. Emotional support? Absolutely Should I have turned them in? Maybe, but I just couldn’t do it, and there were so many other people “fakin” I kind of figured it was not my whistle to blow.
Comment by Nancy Freedman-Smith CPDT — March 11, 2009 @ 7:56 am
That’s a tough situation, Nancy. I wouldn’t blow the whistle, either. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 11, 2009 @ 8:10 am
I have not read the ADA, which is why I asked the question. Of course it should extend to living arrangements, but a lot of laws “should” extend to something that don’t. I’m glad to hear this does.
What I was drawing from was the fact that Gina was extending the argument about a muddy service dog (and therefore a PWD)being refused access and discrimination of other groups such as blacks and Jews. Which seemed like it was asking whether a business owner should be allowed to refuse service to anyone. Hence the landlord example. Possibly I was making too much of a stretch trying to get involved in the conversation. If so, I apologize.
Comment by Lori — March 11, 2009 @ 8:49 am
What I was drawing from was the fact that Gina was extending the argument about a muddy service dog (and therefore a PWD) being refused access and discrimination of other groups such as blacks and Jews.
I wouldn’t say it was “extending” the argument, exactly. It’s the same argument.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 11, 2009 @ 9:07 am
OK, ya know what? Every time I see “PWD” I wonder exactly what Portguese Water Dogs have to do with this discussion. And then I quickly realize we are talking about People With Disabilities.
Which just shows to go ya — another of my grandfather’s fav expressions — that I am indeed, despite all protests to the contrary, following the ObamaDog saga way too closely.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 11, 2009 @ 9:12 am
“PWD”! I thought it was just me who kept thinking porties. :-)
Comment by JenniferJ — March 11, 2009 @ 9:21 am
What I was drawing from was the fact that Gina was extending the argument about a muddy service dog (and therefore a PWD) being refused access and discrimination of other groups such as blacks and Jews.
I wouldn’t say it was “extending” the argument, exactly. It’s the same argument.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 11, 2009
It could also be true that with too little coffee and a rusty sense of blogging after a little time not doing it — plus running late for work — that my snotty shot missed the mark a little. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 11, 2009 @ 9:24 am
me three. The only thing I could come up with is that the Obama’s dog will be a Portie and Obama is black… I didn’t get too far.
Comment by YesBiscuit! — March 11, 2009 @ 9:24 am
Opening the argument, maybe? Whatever, I say Portuguese Water Dogs should have the same access granted to everyone! ;O)
Comment by Lori — March 11, 2009 @ 10:04 am
>forgot to ask how do you know that it is a comfort (emotional support animal) and not a service dog. Did the individual ask if the dog was individually trained?
Because the dog had nothing visible to distinguish it from a pet, she thought it was a pet and told the woman that pets were not allowed in the shop. The woman then said he’s a helping dog. The reason my friend called me later because she wanted to make sure she handled things better in the future.
Comment by Phyllis DeGioia — March 11, 2009 @ 10:18 am
>have the right to disagree
This clearly emphasizes how ADA needs to be tightened. No one should have to venture opinions about what is legal and what isn’t.
Comment by Phyllis DeGioia — March 11, 2009 @ 10:21 am
I found this article very disappointing if not actually infuriating.
I have a dog who is being trained as a Psychiatric Service dog.
You can’t tell me that my dog is fake - as she is doing work and learning to preform tasks to help me with my mental illness.
The article is reactionary and biased in one direction.
If the author or readers want unbiased information on the subject they should contact http://www.psychdog.org
Comment by Tuli — March 11, 2009 @ 11:34 am
I have a disability, and utilize the assistive technology of a mobility scooter and a lift-equipped van. I work full time and am an active member in my community.
What I would like to address is the fact that some retailers seem to forget that persons with disabilities are consumers. They shop for food, clothing, pet food, and wedding gowns just like everyone else.
Many retailers have stairs at the front of their shops, the aisles are too narrow for a wheelchair to navigate, items are placed on high shelves, clothing racks are placed too close together…and the list goes on and on.
If a particular business is not accessible to me, as a person with a disability, then I am not going to spend my money there, as they obviously seem to not want my business. I am going to spend my money at the disability-friendly merchant’s shop…who offers ramps, when necessary (which people without disabilities appreciate also, especially if they are moms pushing strollers), wide aisles, items shelved at wheelchair eye level, item displays are not blocking aisles, and clothing racks are spaced to allow navigation between the clothes for wheelchairs.
The merchant that does these things is telling me that they want my business, and they usually turn out to offer the better all-around customer service… both to persons with disabilities, and without.
Comment by Marcy — March 11, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
As an aside, it’s HIPAA, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, not HIPPA!
Comment by Cathy Z. — March 11, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Thank you, Gina and Christie, for such insightful comments. You have a rare sensitivity to what life is like for a disabled person. Many of the other posts don’t have a clue. To recap my comments on a previous blog that touched on this subject:
Speaking as a genuinely disabled person with a real assistance dog, certification is a very bad idea. The certification folks, for starters, want to ban from assistance dog work any dog that might protect the owner if she is attacked. Their bizarre reasoning is that such a dog will also attack someone who is trying to help the owner. This shows a gross misunderstanding of what a psychologically sound dog does as far as protection is concerned. Also, since disabled people are more vulnerable to criminal attacks, it takes away their only source of protection. All of the wonderful Fidelco German Shepherds, who guide the blind, would be outlawed, since they would do something if a thug started bashing their owner’s head in. Bad dogs! Dangerous dogs! According to the certification folks. I know of one case in which they lied to a wheelchair-bound woman and told her that she could not legally use her wonderfully well trained, very social, and very stable German Shepherd for assistance dog work because the dog had a Schutzhund title.
Imagine, also, what disabled people would be subjected to from the certification folks—having to wait for appointments, then having to show up to grovel and beg for certification from the same types of ninnies that sometimes run rescue groups. It’s degrading, and assumes that a physical disability implies mental deficiency as well. No doubt there would also be hefty fees that disabled people would have to pay to be subjected to this degrading nonsense.
Rest assured that most disabled people are perfectly capable of selecting a well-behaved assistance dog who meets their needs. We don’t need the “superior” non-disabled folks to check up on us and pass judgment on our assistance dogs.
I am not aware of any widespread problems caused by current assistance dogs. Frankly, out-of-control children are a huge nuisance and sometimes dangerous, and yet no one talks about certifying the parents as fit to take the kids out in public.
Certification will also create a nice lucrative little racket for “trainers” and professional busybodies who can’t drum up enough business on their own.
As for people faking disabilities to get their dogs into public facilities, no, I don’t approve of it, but unless the dog misbehaves, this is hardly a major problem that I’m going to lose sleep over. And any misbehaving dog, whether she is an assistance dog or not, will legally and promptly get kicked out of the facility. I do not want to have to start carrying X-rays, notarized doctor’s statements, etc. to prove that I’m disabled. You want to clobber someone for faking a disability, go ahead. But don’t make the already difficult lives of disabled people more difficult in the process. I get enough harassment as it is when I’m out in public with my assistance dog.
Comment by SusanS — March 11, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
Be happy you live in the US where service dogs for multiple disabilities are recognized. In Canada the only dogs who receive full legal coverage are seeing eye dogs. Even legally deaf individuals, people in wheelchairs and others with obvious disabilities are not provided protection by the law.
My own dog is a fully trained service dog for a psychiatric condition, and we are also training our new pup for the same functions. Luckily, my job presents me with the ability to take my dog(s) to work with me, and when not with my dog(s) I am generally with my husband.
On days off, however, I stay at home or just walk around the neighbourhood - we can’t go anywhere because I have no way of certifying my dog as a working dog, regardless of the fact that both my doctor and psychiatrist agree that I function quite poorly in public without support.
Incidentally, however, I do understand the flip side of the coin. Recently at work a woman with a physical disability came in with a “service dog” (of course, I wasn’t about to question her, as dogs are welcome in our place of business regardless). However, this particular dog was actually causing her quite the problem. She was having enough difficulty walking without this 80lb overweight lab pulling her everywhere, stealing things off the shelves, and growling at my dogs.
It’s incredibly frustrating…
Comment by Kim — March 11, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
“She was having enough difficulty walking without this 80lb overweight lab pulling her everywhere, stealing things off the shelves, and growling at my dogs.
It’s incredibly frustrating…”
There was absolutely nothing to be frustrated about. The dog was disruptive and ill-behaved, and you had every right, legal and otherwise, to insist that she remove the dog.
Comment by SusanS — March 11, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
Liz writes:
Of course, I also would like to see a Public Access test available to pet dogs, as well. If we had a Public Access test and authorization for any animal that could pass that test, we wouldn’t have to worry at all about whether or not the animal was a service animal.
I agree. If there were more dogs visibly demonstrating obedient behavior, this would be a non-issue. It levels the paying field if there is public access for all dogs.
Comment by Linda Kaim — March 12, 2009 @ 5:17 am
The last line of the post caught my eye.
Here in Israel, any dog (behaving appropriately) is allowed on public transportation, provided that the dog is leashed (or crated), muzzled and payed for (service dogs ride for free and don’t need to be muzzled).
I don’t own a car, so I took my (66lb) dog on the bus / train a few times. The fact that I have a legal way to do it was very very helpful, enabling me to do things that otherwise I would not be able to (like taking my dog to a clicker training class next town over).
And I of more than a few rescue volunteers who transported dogs in this way around the country (Israel is a small country, so these ride are never too long).
Trying to imagine my current living without a car, but without also being able to take my animals on public transportation makes me shiver. Heck, I even took my cat to the vet once on a bus.
Perhaps working on allowing *any* dog on public transportation (similar to what we have here in Israel) will help cut down on the number of “fake” service dogs?
Comment by Xslf — March 12, 2009 @ 5:18 am
Allowing dogs more access is not a solution, and I think even the idea that some people think it is, is where the problems with fake service dogs start to come in.
Sure, your pet is well-behaved, and it sure would be nice to take him to the mall. So what if he’s not a service dog? If service dogs are allowed, there is not a good reason that all dogs are not allowed. It must just be pet-hate.
So, what’s the harm in bringing him and seeing if no one notices? And if they ask, so what if I say say he’s a service dog? Wouldn’t a vest prevent those questions. It’s not harming anyone.
Here’s the thing though, service dogs are not an exception to the rule, they are above the rules, because they are an extension of the person who they assist.
Sure, you might like your dog to join you for a cup of coffee, but you do not need him to help you live your life. You do not need him to pick up that pen you dropped. You do not need him to guide you over the curb. You do not need him to tell you to take your insulin. You do not need him to keep you functioning rationally.
There is a fundamental difference between wanting to bring a pet in public places, no matter how well behaved, and needing a service animal. Do not equate the issues.
(I have to say though, I do always wonder why it is always just dogs-should-be-allowed and not pets in general? I know a few rats that are terribly well-behaved.)
Comment by Christine H — March 12, 2009 @ 8:02 am
I should add that the “you” is a general you, not aimed at a person in particular.
Comment by Christine H — March 12, 2009 @ 8:03 am
First, I do agree that it shouldn’t be “dogs” but “pets”.
Regardless, reading this thread, I can’t but notice how strange it is to me how limited access to public places pets have in the US.
No, I’m not trying to equate service dogs to pets.
On the other hand, I’m not talking about “it will be nice to take my pet with me to drink a cup of coffee”.
Sure, service dogs are “above the rules”. But not living in the US, do find that the rules I learned about in this thread to be really strange.
Perhaps in the US people don’t use public transportation as much or at all. But here, public transportation is considered “public”- including pets.
I’m trying to imagine my life if I wasn’t allowed to take my pets on public transportation.
Since I don’t drive, that means that anything beyond walking distance is off limits. So yes, my vet happens to be walking distance away. But it wasn’t always.
I know I’m not too coherent here. I was just was trying point out that from an outsider point of view, how the base situation of “no pets allowed, service dogs are exempt from the rules” seems very very strange.
Perhaps the reason that here there isn’t a problem with fake service dogs (as far as I know from my friends who either use or train service dogs) is due to the fact that while service dogs do have extra privileges, the baseline is wide enough that people don’t seem to find the need to fake a service dog in order to take it places.
Comment by Xslf — March 12, 2009 @ 9:04 am
It’s not the same topic, as mentioned several times. Service dogs are not pets.
But I ABSOLUTELY agree with you that I wish society were more open to accepting well-mannered dogs in more public places. I would be utterly delighted to put a comfortable box muzzle on my dog to be able to take her on public transportation — and delighted, too, to pay a fare for her.
I was reading over the weekend about ZIPcars — little cars you can rent by the hour to save the cost and trouble of owning a car in an urban area. I love the concept, and would park my car in a New York minute to sign up for the program.
But … must not touch anything in the car. Since they’re all little cars, crating could be an issue for anyone without a little dog, and harnessing isn’t an answer if the dog can’t even touch the upholstery.
Counts me out, doesn’t it?
Again, this issue is distinct from the issues of access for service dogs, and needs to be kept that way.
But what I wouldn’t give for a more dog-friendly America.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 12, 2009 @ 9:14 am
Sure, you might like your dog to join you for a cup of coffee, but you do not need him to help you live your life. You do not need him to pick up that pen you dropped. You do not need him to guide you over the curb. You do not need him to tell you to take your insulin. You do not need him to keep you functioning rationally.
You don’t need your kids for these things, either, and yet you are allowed, and expect to be allowed, to bring your kids with you most places.
A well-behaved, well-trained dog who can pass a Public Access test should not be banned from any public place unless there is a specific reason to exclude dogs. (The sections of zoos that include hoofstock, is one example that’s been given.)
You are mistaken about service dogs being “above the rules”; no one and nothing can be outside the rules of society, or we have unmanagable problems and (eventually) no society—or, more likely, eventually even more restrictive rules. Both the problems that service dogs and people with service dogs encounter gaining the access they’re entitled to, and the problems caused by people pretending that their pets are service dogs in order to gain access where they’re not allowed, exist because currently the rules presume that dogs are banned unless they qualify for the exemption accorded to service dogs.
This leads to people with well-trained, well-behaved service dogs getting harassed by business operators who don’t know the law or think it doesn’t apply to them or think that only guide dogs qualify or think that only certain breeds can be service dogs.
It also leads to business operators confronted with a dog who is ill-trained and ill-behaved, but who is claimed to be a service dog or who might be a service dog, and who is not ignorant of the law or indifferent to it, being uncertain whether they have the right to eject the dog and its owner.
If every dog that can pass a Public Access test has the right to public access with is owner as long as it is well-behaved, then “service dog” or “not service dog” disappears as an issue, and the only question is, has the dog passed the test and is the dog behaving appropriately now?
Comment by Lis — March 12, 2009 @ 9:52 am
One further note: in the Boston area, leashed dogs are allowed on the public transit system during off-peak hours. And trust me, barring emergency, you would not want to take your dog onto the public transit system during rush hour!
Comment by Lis — March 12, 2009 @ 9:57 am
You don’t need your kids for these things, either, and yet you are allowed, and expect to be allowed, to bring your kids with you most places.
You are correct! I would say that I am not sure what Thing A has to do with Thing B, but then it occures to me that kids, particularly the young and annoying ones, needs their parents to do many of those things. Funny how that works!
Ugh. I’m hitting the off button, the Privilege is leaving a bad taste in my mouth.
Comment by Christine H — March 12, 2009 @ 11:33 am
Thank you for this post, very well-informed and researched - with citations instead of just opinion. It’s well within a business owner’s right to ask several things:
“Is that a service animal?”
“Are you disabled?”
“What task(s) does this dog perform to mitigate your disability?”
If the answer is something like “Yes, yes, alerting/mobility assistance” something like that, then bam, all is well. And if the person is lying? Well… that’s probably about a $25,000 fine. If the dog is not behaving appropriately and you have to ask them to leave and they refuse, you can call the police - and THEY can request actual evidence of a disability and the need for the animal…often if the dog is misbehaving, you have a faker.
Comment by Mandie — March 12, 2009 @ 11:45 am
“I am not aware of any widespread problems caused by current assistance dogs. Frankly, out-of-control children are a huge nuisance and sometimes dangerous, and yet no one talks about certifying the parents as fit to take the kids out in public.”
LOL! I have to say… I worked retail in 2002, during the first big season Winter White was introduced and I had to damage out more white clothing from chocolate ice cream kid fingerprints than I can count. (We were next to a Haagen Daaz.)
I know this is off topic… but if I no longer am allowed to ask a customer to leave food and drink outside my store (mall rules), then how can someone possibly ask a service dog (real or imagined) to leave?
Comment by m — March 12, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
Most of this article and comments are a very depressing commentary about how far we still have to go before the stigma surrounding mental illness changes. You can’t see it. The person acts “normal.” So it must be a fake.
What at issue here? A woman who didn’t want dirty paws on her carpet. Did she ask the woman to wipe the dog’s feet and avoid the plastic? No. A simple enough remedy that any reasonable person would agree to do. But no, this ignorant (and in violation of the law) store keeper’s experience becomes a free for all on how people with mental illness are fakes with fake service dogs. Shame on this writer. The rule to new worthy articles is to find experts and hard evidence. This is just a lame attempt to pass off a personal bias and experience as a trend. Nice as an editorial but doesn’t qualify as research, just personal bias. But, everyone has a right to voice their opinion, no matter how uninformed and biased.
Comment by jane brown — March 12, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
There are some major issues with this article that are plain incorrect. “Comfort dogs” as you call them are not the same thing as a service dog. The term for that is an Emotional Support Animal (ESA). These are animals that are given accommodation in no-pets housing with a letter of disability from a licensed mental health professional. These animals may be allowed on an aircraft with a similar note.
That being said, does not mean that there is NO such thing as a service dog for those with psychiatric disabilities. In fact, there are. There are a great many dogs out there who have been very well trained to help those with psychiatric disabilities. Having a dog trained to alert to different things, lead the handler to safe places like a bench or an exit, finding a family member in times of distress, prompting the handler to take needed medication when the medications side effect or condition creates memory issues, are just a few ways that dogs can be trained to help those with psychiatric disabilities become productive again.
Getting resources from only ONE source (IAADP) is not the way to true journalism. Multiple sources of different organizations and people on all sides of the story would be best. There as been a great disconnect between those who have “physical disabilities” and those with “psychiatric or mental disabilities”. There really is no reason for it. The mind effects just as much of the body if not more than say the eyes, spine, ears, limbs, hearts, and other systems, organs, or body parts. The point is how much you are effected by these things. Having a chemical imbalance in the mind that effects many aspects of your well being can in extreme cases can be just as or even more so disabling as losing your sight. It is just harder to comprehend. We can all close our eyes and imagine what it would be like to be blind, but it takes a special skill to be empathetic to those who have issues that we can not comprehend.
I will use myself as an example, since I know there are others like me out there. I have many disorders that each effect each other in a very complex way. I have bipolar, agoraphobia, general and social anxiety disorders, panic attacks, OCD, PTSD, and a few others. The different phases of bipolar bring out different parts of the other conditions. Such as Manic brings out my OCD, and parts of my PTSD more than they are prevalent in other times. In a depressive state my agoraphobia, anxiety, PTSD and the other complications with being in a depressive state come into play. I am unable to take medications to control these things, so I have been learning to live in harmony with these things.
My service dog in training naturally alerts to two major pieces of my complex problems that give me the most trouble. By my encouragement for these things, and reinforcing these behaviors, I am training them. By teaching her to work with me as a team, I am training her. By teaching her to respond to things in a certain way and then reinforcing those behaviors, I am training her. I train her by practicing things in all different kinds of places. I train her by taking her to classes to learn more skills in a different setting. I train her by giving her opportunities to learn more. My dog is 6 months old and works with me because she respects me. She has a long way to go, but already does more than other dogs we have met and does many of those things naturally. I just reinforce her doing so.
I have many more things planned for the future to teach her.
I think a major aspect of the law has been over looked for so long that it seems to have been completely forgotten. The wording in the law is actually “Service animals include any animal individually trained to do work OR perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability.”. http://www.ada.gov/taman3.html (search Service Animal) This means that a dog can be passively doing something to help the disabled handler or actively doing something to help the disabled handler. Not both at the same time, and not only Tasks. Tasks are only a small part of what a service dog can do.
Now if you met someone with a seizure disorder who said that their dog alerted them to oncoming seizures, how would this be any different than my telling you that my dog alerts to oncoming panic attacks and major mood changes? Both instances can cause major harm to the handler if that service from the dog was not provided. If I did not have a dog that naturally alerted to oncoming panic attacks and mood changes (among other things) I could run into a pole or wall because my vision is effected as well as my comprehension of distance. My balance, breathing, vision, hearing, and other systems are effected to the point where I have run into things, walked into traffic because I could not see where I was going, tried to get into someone else’s car that looked just like mine, and have been totally disoriented that I didn’t know where I was or where I was going.
Without the use of a service dog I am often, even now because she is still training, confined to my home from paralyzing fear, cannot sleep, cannot go shopping alone and often not even with others there to help, cannot drive alone, and at certain times forget to do simple tasks such as eating, house work, and other major tasks. With the help of a service dog and the support of my therapist I am getting more independent and able to do things that just 8 months ago and longer were impossible for me.
Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is not important. Things my dog does can look to others as disobedience, when in fact they are alerts to me, or something I have trained her to do for me. I think that just because you might have had anxiety in your life or felt depressed, that does not mean that is the same as what those of us with disabling disorders deal with. Multiply what you have felt on your worst day by 5 or more on a hourly, daily, and otherwise basis, and try to live a normal life everyday. Then you can have an idea of how it is on a good day for us.
Comment by Nicole — March 12, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
“Grounding” can be considered a legitimate service dog task, in specific situations. Grounding may not be the best word to describe the task, however for my disability, grounding would defiantly a good word for it.
I have a dissociative disorder, where I can get ‘lost’ in my own head, and be unable to respond to the outside world. Many things can trigger a dissociative episode for me, including fire alarms. Should I be in a building with a fire, I would be unable to leave the building and get to safety without someone or something to ground me. I do not have a service dog at this time, the cost of one is beyond my abilities - even without mandatory testing and paperwork costs. My roommate currently helps me in this regard.
However, when I live on my own, I will need to have someone or something to do this for me. In this case, grounding is exactly what is being done, and for me this would be a LIFE SAVING task my service dog could provide.
For it to be considered a task, it would have to be specifically trained, and the dog would have to show that it behaves in this way consistently to the same ‘trigger’ in different situations. Responses considered helpful for me in this case would be Licking, Nudging, and possibly even Barking. The dog’s behavior would have to be shown to be in response to my dissociative spell, and not just something done randomly because of boredom or something else.
Other tasks a service dog would perform for me could include alerting me to dissociative episodes, panic attacks, flashbacks, or bipolar manias or depressions before they happen, bringing me medication and water, getting outside help, mobility support (for medication side effects and balance issues from dissociative episodes etc), helping me get through panic attacks by remaining in a sit stay or down stay, as well as other things.
My disability is entirely invisible, and without the need for mobility support, a small dog would be able to be my service dog. Much of the time, the tasks my dog would perform could appear much like ‘comforting’ rather then an ‘official’ task, however that would simply not be the case.
Comment by c — March 12, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
Again I want to speak up for the small business owner, as that is how this very enlightening discussion begam. A sole proprietor and/or a small business of less than 4 employees is exempt from ADA.
I own a small business and I also have a service dog (for seizures), so I can see both sides of this discussion. A small business owner should not have to bear the cost of complying with ADA; that was never the intent of ADA. It’s original purpose was to help disabled persons maintain liveable employment by having access to their workplaces.
I’m afraid sometimes people become so tunnel-visioned that they can’t see the larger picture. On some occasions (such as shopping for a wedding dress) it is more appropriate to take a human friend with you for assistance and leave your service dog at home. I would think the same would apply to unruly children. Get a sitter and go to that small boutique you’ve been curious about with an adult friend.
Just because I need a service dog when I’m alone doesn’t mean that I don’t need to use common sense as to where Lolly (my dog) would be welcomed.
Comment by Linda Johnson — March 12, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
The ADA does have exemptions. However, the number of employees is not one for public accommodations.
For archetectural barriers financial cost can be considered a reason for exemption.
For employment, a business must have 15 employees to be considered an employer
For public accommodations, the exceptions are for religious organizations, private clubs,and B&B with less then 4 rooms and that have the manager (owner) living on site. The B&B is case law and not statutory in nature.
Taking a human does not always work. For example, a human can’t provide the primary function of my service animal and lack of that function does threaten my life.
When individuals with legitimate disabilities start deciding to not take their service animals where they are not welcome, the locations that the team could go starts to be severely limited.
Comment by E. Williamson — March 13, 2009 @ 7:21 am
>“Comfort dogs” as you call them are not the same thing as a service dog.
No, they are not. One is individually trained to mitigate a disability and the other isn’t. That’s made clear in the article.
>That being said, does not mean that there is NO such thing as a service dog for those with psychiatric disabilities. In fact, there are.
Did you read the whole article or just a few paragraphs? Didn’t you read the part about the service dog trained and certified to mitigate a man’s post traumatic stress syndrome?
Comment by Phyllis DeGioia — March 13, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
I’ve seen a huge increase in agility people calling their dogs “service” dogs so that they can travel with them to agility trials and seminars. It’s become incredibly common. I’ve alse heard rumors about the AKC planning to set up representatives at airports for their National events so see who is traveling with their dog as a “service dog”. It’s just because they can save money and hassle by having the dog in the cabin and not as cargo. I think it’s a horrible abuse of the ADA.
Comment by C — March 13, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
One thing that really “irks” me, is the fact that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is law…not an option which businesses can take or leave at their own discretion.
But yet, some businesses choose to treat it that way.
There are no “ADA Police,” but if there were, I’m sure that a multitude of violations would turn up all over our country (hmmm, wonder if that might be a good source of revenue during our current recession?).
People with disabilities are to this day still suffering from discrimination in the area of accessibility, even though the ADA was written almost 20 years ago.
If a service animal is not a nuisance or hazard to others, then the person with a disability, who needs the assistance of that service animal has the right to bring that animal with them, wherever they go.
I’m wondering about the bridal shop incident…if a person came into the shop with muddy wheelchair wheels, would they have been asked to leave also (as in the case of the dog). I’m just saying that I think that all possibilities towards making an accommodation for the person should be exhausted, before asking the person to either remove the dog and/or themselves from the premises.
Businesses are looking to sell their products, and the person with a disability is a consumer, who is looking to buy what the business is selling. The business should be looking for a way to satisfy the customer’s need to access their products…not looking for a way to get rid of them.
Just good customer service, I think.
Comment by Marcy — March 14, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
Hi again,
I just wanted to clarify my previous comment. Someone asked about my dog wearing her therapy dog vest in public. The times she wears her therapy dog vest in public are when we are on our way to or back from a therapy dog session or when I am going into an event or show where we are volunteering at an information booth for the therapy dog organization. We do a lot of booth volunteering so she is in public with her vest quite a bit at dog shows, festivals, fairs, and pet events.
When I was training her I bought a pocket vest which said Therapy Dog - In Training and one side had a patch reading “Ask to Pet Me I’m Friendly.” I used this to help practice her training (when she was well-behaved/trained enough to be in public) and also in hopes that people would actually ASK before petting her. She was thrilled with any petting and behaved fine but people petting a dog without asking is a pet peeve of mine so I hoped it would help people remember to ask. When she was certified as a therapy dog I took off the “in training” patch but I rarely used the vest after that. The one time I did use it was on a vacation as an extra form of identification. I am a little paranoid about possibly losing my dogs, probably partly because they were originally strays. I felt that if she was wearing a vest and something happened where she was loose or missing people would be more likely to try to catch her realizing it was not a stray dog. It also had reflective material for night safety. The main reason I used it though was because it had pockets, so I could put all her identification in the pockets on trips in case we were somehow separated. This way I was able to put emergency contact information, the names, and contact info for the hotels we were staying at and the dates we would be at those hotels, and other travel info which would not fit on a tag. I guess I could have used a dog backpack instead but the vest was much lighter and smaller so it was more convenient and not bulky or irritating to the dog. Backpacks didn’t work too well for her (I tried them for hiking) because of the way they stick out to the sides— she’d catch the side on a wall or tree or something and think she was stuck there and refuse to move.
Again I wanted to say while I would love to take my dog everywhere and I take her where she is allowed, I do not agree with anyone taking a pet where they’re not allowed. They have no right to do so and no need for the dog’s assistance.
Comment by Nonny — March 14, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
**I’ve seen a huge increase in agility people calling their dogs “service” dogs so that they can travel with them to agility trials and seminars. It’s become incredibly common. I’ve alse heard rumors about the AKC planning to set up representatives at airports for their National events so see who is traveling with their dog as a “service dog”. It’s just because they can save money and hassle by having the dog in the cabin and not as cargo. I think it’s a horrible abuse of the ADA.**
On their return from Eukanuba in 2008, my daughter and her daughter, who has competed in Junior Showmanship for several years, were astonished to see another Junior Handler who lives near us present her dog to airline personnel as a “service dog” so she would not have to pay for its transport. The offending Junior has never had a “service dog” with her any of the hundreds of times we have seen her in public over a 7-year period - not at shows, not at restaurants, not in hotels where her family and ours stayed, not at shopping centers we happened to be in at the same time. It is certainly possible this individual has a disability, but she goes about her daily life unaccompanied by any dog except when she is training for competition, exercising her dogs, and competing with them. The only time she has claimed the dog accompanying her was a “service dog” was when she would have had to pay a hefty price for the dog to fly as excess baggage.
I hope AKC does develop some system to monitor exhibitors for such abuses, and hands out severe penalties for this dishonorable behavior. Obviously AKC cannot do this everywhere, but doing this at its own show and exposing some abusers might discourage people from exploiting the ADA for personal advantage, at least in connection with dog shows.
Comment by elaine — March 14, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
Although I’m against people claiming their dogs are service dogs when they’re not, I think it’s missing the point entirely to say that someone who wants to fly their dog in the cabin is doing it to save money.
I’d happily pay far more to fly my dog in the cabin than in the cargo area, because it’s SAFER.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 15, 2009 @ 8:30 am
I’ve had encounters with ‘fake’ service dogs. Guide dogs for visually impaired are third party certified and I’ve never had a problem with one. But, an encounter with a female pit bull ‘service dog in training’ that growled and snapped at everyone. She and the dog do real service dogs a huge disservice.
Any service dog should be third party certified, marked with a vest stating: “I’m on duty NO TOUCHING’. And certification papers on person or better yet, in a sleeve on the dogs vest. As I understand, these dogs go through a a re-certification every 6 months or once a year. Thats fine with me, as long as the dog behaves properly and knows the basic commands. (Sit, stay, lie down). Etc.
Obviously a zoo, or any place that displays animals like the poultry birds, or rabbit section, horses, small hoof stock at a county fair or event with wildlife park should be able to refuse entry. I’ve seen livestock panic at the site of an un familar dog. Even if the dog is well behaved.
Stiff penalties must be asssesed for false documentation. It really hurts the individual who needs and has a fully certified dog which behaves properly.
Comment by Karen Carroll — April 4, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
Now, don’t everyone jump on me at once.
Why would it be terrible or interfering with the rights/needs of the disabled with true therapy dogs if someone without a disability had their dog certified as a service/therapy dog?
If the dog recieves the proper training and behaves itself in public as it should, I see no reason why an unimpaired person shouldn’t be able to enjoy the company of their certified and trained dog.
Comment by Charles — April 6, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
This is exactly what is wrong with the world today. People imposing their view and opinions and condemning others for their actions. If someone wants to take their pet out with them, So be it!!!! Asking a person who states that their dog is a service dog,”What kind of “Service” dog it is?, is the same exact thing as asking someone, “What is in your medicine cabinet.!!!!!
As far as the comments I hear from people who say that the “fake” service dogs are ruining it for the people who really need them,,,, I ask ,HOW?
Why don’t you focus on the issues that are ruining the society and our future. Stop causing problems and issues where there are none.
Comment by johnny cashew — May 7, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
Speaking as a new guide dog handler with a often questionable dog (she’s not yet two, so she thinks she is still a puppy) from a respected school, I think we do need stricter standards. Maybe the dog teams don’t need to be certified directly. Rather the schools should be certified by a central governing body. With the power to revoke said certification if the school fails to meet certain standards. Sadly, there are claims of some schools abusing their dogs. Whether they are true or not, I don’t know. But it would be really nice if someone had the authority to crack down on such things if it does occur. It is hard enough to convince people that your dog is a functioning service dog when it sometimes behaves little better than a pet; how much harder it would be if everyone broke the law and all dogs were allowed to act poorly? When my little girl is naughty, I correct her and try to redirect her. We need something to make the lives of service dog teams saner. The ADA in its current format seems to be doing the opposite. Kudos for you for the writing!
Comment by Laurel — October 23, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
I see that so many of the posters want to see people’s disability certified? Hmmm…how do you propose to do that? Force people to walk around with a note from their doctor and have to show it to anyone who asks? And then so many want to see required certification for service dogs? Hmmm again…and just who is going to do this? The government who would be required to create a whole new buracracy to handle this with tax increases or hefty fees to cover their costs, or do we plan to enrich a few individuals, or god forbid corporations who feel they know better than anyone else what it takes to be a service dog? Since i have been around service dogs now for a couple of years, i have seen a huge divide among those who train dogs, and to be honest all I see is a whole lot of “i know more than you” and “They do it wrong” and “If no one can self train a service dog” (very wrong) and an idea that everyone should be held to someone else’s standard. I’ve seen a $40,000 professional guide dog break free from its owner to chase a cat, so is that a true service dog? I have seen service dogs who were angels, and some who were not, and I can assure you all that any attempt to “fix” the ADA will result in significantly reduced rights for those least able to make themselves heard. It’s not perfect, never will be, but at least you have rights, so I’d cherish them folks.
Comment by Ron Graham — November 12, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
Uh. Yeah. I don’t understand why you all aren’t seeing the point, that people fly with their dogs who are not service dogs, in the cabin, and not in cargo, BECAUSE IT’S SAFER! It has nothing to do with not wanting to spend the money. Do you people realize that a percentage of animals that ride in cargo are injured/stressed/even die? A small percentage, yes. And I realize a small percentage of people die falling down the stairs in their house, too, but I feel no shame for simply wanting to take no chances to protect the physical psychological and emotional safety of a family member that I love more than life itself while still leaving my life open to opportunities outside the country.
I don’t generally approve of lying about a non-service dog being a service dog for most things, but if it came down to if— If some amazing job opportunity fell into my lap in say, Europe, and I chose to move from the U.S. to Europe for that job, and the ONLY way to get my 2 dogs to Europe was to Fly them, Would I pull the Service Dog Card for the one that is too big to ride under the seat? Yes. In a heart beat. He’s a trained therapy dog. No I don’t need him to assist me in a disability. However, he can navigate in public as if he is invisible when he is working, which is what matters in this discussion, and so I conclude that so long as he does, my standing for the Safety of My Dog in a theoretical situation where the pros of the opportunity are too good to turn down is really not something I see anything wrong with.
Sometimes you have to go against the system once in awhile to get things done. Likewise, I’ll bet everyone of you has gone over the speed limit at some point in your life if you drive. If you’re doing it with conscientiousness and caution and with respect to the rights of others to be safe, I see nothing wrong with it.
Comment by Alexis — November 15, 2009 @ 2:39 am
Sometimes you have to go against the system once in awhile to get things done. Likewise, I’ll bet everyone of you has gone over the speed limit at some point in your life if you drive. If you’re doing it with conscientiousness and caution and with respect to the rights of others to be safe, I see nothing wrong with it.
Comment by Alexis — November 15, 2009
Problem is, if YOU get busted for driving over the speed limit, YOU get a ticket. The rest of us aren’t going to have our driving privs removed.
If enough people game the service dog system, the hard-win RIGHTS of people with disabilities are put in danger of being revoked.
And by the way … NO ONE likes to put a pet in cargo. But the risk is extremely low, according to federal reports. And it can be made even lower by making sure your pet is in good health and is well-socialized and comfortable with a crate and is not sedated. And by choosing flights (direct) and times (because of weather conditions) carefully. And by staying in touch with cargo people politely.
When McKenzie’s flight back from Minneapolis/St. Paul was delayed, I was one the phone with an exceptionally kind woman at Northwest Cargo. She told me McKenzie was resting comfortably in her crate right next to the desk — and sent me a cell phone picture to prove it.
McKenzie not only came back safe (only a could hours delayed) but with Babies on Board.
You want better flying conditions for pets? So do I. So work for them. Your own situation and your own wishes are NOT WORTH the risk to people who actually NEED service animals to get through their lives.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 15, 2009 @ 7:54 am
People should read the ADA American With Disablity Act before they ask you if its a service dog. All people that work out in public should know the service dog laws.
People that real do need a service dog have a hard time getting a uniform and patches if they don’t have a computer and a visa or debt card ect. That’s the only place you can buy them know. What are we to do? If you self-train your own dog.
Why people self-train because the waiting list is 2 to 6 years before you can get a SD and they cost too much. If You are on SSI you can not afford a service dog from these training places. If you think people should only get the SD from training places, do something about it email or write a letter to your local sentor or governer requesting more training places for SD in your state or city. If you are not going to do something about this, then you should shut up!!!! Hope we can get more people to help us get more training places. Let them know what kind of disablity that the dog should be trained for and what type of breed to be use.
Comment by Cindy — November 21, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
Ok, a couple of things to address. Assistance dog organizations have no business developing tests to be applied to guide dogs. Only guide dog schools do, just as a guide dog school has no right to try and apply one of their tests to a hearing ear dog, etc. A guide dog should not keep a down stay while people step over it. Guide dogs need to learn to get the hell off of the floor when their handler is walking in the home and approaches them, or when an unknowing blind person or sighted person not paying attention approaches it in public, so that the dog will not be tripped on and injured. Maintaining a heal position is not appropriate for PTSD dogs that need to clear crouds away from their handlers or guide dogs who need to proceed their owners. That is the difficulty of the situation. I do agree that some standard must be in place to identify, punish and prevent fakers, but putting the decission as to whether or not a service dog is ligitimate in the hands of the government or any one organization or individual, is a very very bad idea. Perhaps passing the good citizenship test would be a good step, as this can be done out of vest and out of harness, and is vague enough to not violate the spacific training of any service dog, to my knowledge, but if someone sees that I am wrong on that score, please do correct me. There needs to always be some provision for owner trained service dogs, as I know many extremely compitant people who have trained their own service dogs, even their own guide dogs, and their dogs are well-groomed, well-behaved and very well-trained. If every service dog was required to have come from a hearing ear dog school, a guide dog school, a PTSD dog school, etc, these people would be deprived of their right to train and handel their own dogs. As to the issue with the bridal consignment shop. She is either obligated to let the dog on the plastic, or provide an area, inside the shop, not on the portch, and not in some out-of-sight to the handler back room, where the dog can sit or lay, not on the plastic. If her entire store floor is covered by the plastic? Tough luck for her. She does, however, have the right to ask the handler to wipe the dog’s paws off before coming close to the dresses. Also, she needs to get off of her high horse, when a real service dog is concerned. I have gone into bridal stores that sell new dresses, not used ones, like at a consignment shop, that cost five hundred to a thousand dollars a piece, with my GSD whose fur, absolutely did get on the hems of a few dresses, but she was clean and well-groomed, and I had no problems from the owners, and that is also what lint rollers or lint brushes are for. Someone suggested that the certification be conducted through animal control, or an agency connected with DHHS? You have got to be kidding me. I wouldn’t get animal control or DHHS, which is connected to CPS anywhere near my house. All we need next is an ignorant animal control officer, who knows jack squat about guide dogs getting on a handler’s case for feeding a raw diet, or someone from DHHS coming into a home and seeing that a service dog handler co-sleeps or babywears or believes in infant led weening or elimination communication, and getting CPS involved. Disabled people, especially those with visual imparements or who are in wheelchairs already catch enough hell as parents, we don’t want zellots from governmental agencies in our homes. Holy no way. Someone in a wheelchair mentioned high shelves. Erm, get over it. Everything else you said is ligitimate, absolutely spot on, the stairs, clothing wrack placement, ile width, but high shelves give people not in wheelchairs a hard time too, and they are neccessary for product storage and placement for the stores to be effective and efficent. That is what those little grabber things are for, people in wheelchairs to get things off of high shelves, just like, that’s what those little rolling ladder thinggies are for, able bodied people to get things from the high shelves in book stores, but we don’t go nuts. I have several friends who are of average hight who often let loose strings of four letter words in old book stores or at wharehouse stores, because they have to go through various excersizes in commic relief and potential injury to get things off of the high shelves. I am blind, and yeah, it would be neat if I could reach everything with my hands on shelves to look at them, but some things in sight range for sighted people are too high for me to reach and therefore “see”. Just had to share, because I saw a lady at Wegman’s in an electric wheelchair complaining the other day, that she couldn’t reach something. I offered to help her, and she got offended, as did she by the suggestion that she ask a store person to snag it for her. This, just after one of my sighted, able boddied friends was hopping up and down infuriated by a box of non-mainstream cereal just out of reach. Those high shelves piss all of us off, but for them to not be used would mean inefficent use of shop space, which means more and bigger stores, bad for the environment, and or more limited product selection in stores. Someone, several someones have said basically “All well-behaved pet dogs should be allowed in public places.” Wrong. What you are not taking into acount is that the amount of blind, deaf, wheelchair-bound, bipolar, PTSD, agoraphobic, etc individuals in our population makes up a tiny percentage. Even if every single one had a guide dog, hearing ear dog, service dog, medical alert dog, etc, and they certainly do not all have such assistance dogs, it would still only be a tiny percentage. The reason that dogs are not allowed into hospitals, clothing stores, restaurants, etc, generally speaking, is that dogs, even well-groomed well-behaved dogs can pose health concerns and mild ware and tare, property damage. A few service dogs won’t really hurt things, but if there are five or six pet dogs at any given time wandering through a clothing store, all day, everyday, the clothing will be filthy. If one or two service dogs accompany their owners to the hospital to visit sick relatives or to medical appointments of the handler, this should not impact the aire and cleanliness quality of the hospital, but if everyone is bringing their dogs through, the allergy factor would go insane and the ability of the maintainance staff to keep up with the pet hair, nail scratches, tracked in mud, etc would be too much. I don’t care how responsible of a pet owner you are, and how clean your dog is, but if you have been walking in the rain and you come into a restaurant, there will be wafts of “eau de wet dog” from your furry friend until he or she is dry, and sometimes even after. Multiply this by twenty dogs in a restaurant, and it would actively stink. I have been to events where there were thirty or more guide dogs in one room, and they were all extremely well-behaved and clean, but there was a definite doggy odor upon first stepping into the medium-sized lecture hall. I have been in a party of twelve guide dog handlers, who as responsible service dog handlers, opted to sit on the out-door veranda of a particular small cafe, in defference to the owner and customers. Four people and therefore four dogs to a table would have meant that some paws and butts and heads and tales would have been blocking the walk ways, and in a small cafe in late summer, the doggy smell would have been apparent. If every well-behaved pet dog was taken into public, there would be a decrease in the quality of life and enjoyment for all concerned. Also, just because your pet dog passes the good citizenship test, does not mean that they could cope with the dog distractions that say a guide dog deals with. Pet dogs, even friendly ones, can be a serious workking distraction to a guide dog, and this does not mean that the guide dog is doing anything wrong. They are not machines, they are dogs, and are not perfect. I would not fault my dog one bit if he kept popping up at a restaurant, if there were two pet dogs under our table and a few more at each subsiquint table. Yes, two guide dogs can curl up together, under a table and sleep the meal away, but even well-behaved pet dogs are not consistantly able to do that, and shouldn’t have to be. Think how stressful it would be for many pet dogs to constantly have to be extra well-behaved all of the time in a restaurant or store? That really isn’t fair to the dog. The dogs that do guide work and assistance dog work, etc, are specially screned and selected for an extremely stable and calm personality, something that protects them against stress, but that most pets do not possess. Someone said that all guide dogs are third party certified, wrong, and that they are recertified every six months or every year, wrong again. Once you have the dog, the school will provide follow-up upon request, but you are officially graduated from the program, and with many schools you own the dog, and they no longer have any legal claim to it, or you can apply for full ownership one to two years after graduating the program. What many schools do do however, is retain ownership of the harness. For instance the Fidelco Guide Dog Foundation hands over ownership after two years, if the handler wishes it, but Fidelco owns the harness always, and if they think you are not using your dog properly or not maintaining the training, or when you retire your dog, they will ask for the harness back, although not all schools, for instance Guiding Eyes for the Blind are very good about this. I still have all of my GEB equipment, which is nice to have a spare if my GDF harness were to become damaged or lost unexpectedly, although, I would have to cover the backstrap that says Guiding Eyes on it, because Bailey is a Guide Dog Foundation dog, not a Guiding Eyes for the Blind dog. To another poster, if you knew this woman was breaking the law with her adjility dog, why didn’t you intervene? I was once denyed a seat on a plane, because they said “We can only have two service dogs in the cabin at one time, and a woman on your flight already has two. Now, i do understand that some people, a rare few, do in fact have two service dogs, I know one in fact, but I had a feeling this wasn’t right. I pressed the ticket agent, and he told me that the woman had two Jack Rustle tarriors in her purse. Service animals should not be carried in one’s purse, and I knew for a fact that there was a small breed show being hosted in the city we were traveling to, because I am a geek and I find out about these things, as a dog lover. I asked him if the woman had said that they were service dogs, or hearing ear dogs, etc, and he said that no, she had just said “I need them” and brandished some papers in his face. I do seem to have an over-abundance of both balls and backbone that sometimes serves me well and some times gets me into trouble, I admit it. I convinced the man to let me board the plane anyway, and I found her and went up to her, holding my dog’s leash, with out her harness, so that my GSD didn’t look like a guide dog, but could have been mistaken for any sort of law enforcement dog to an ignorant person and said “Ma’am. I’m sorry, but you are going to have to crate your dogs and put them under the plane. I have sources that have informed me that you are commiting a crime, trying to pass off two AKC competition dogs as service animals, to attend a small breed dog show, without checking your dogs as bagage. If you leave this plane immediately and check your dogs appropriately in an airline crate, no charges will be pressed.” She was up and out of that seat and off of the plane before you could say ADA. I never lied to her, she was breaking the law, my sources informing me of the dog show were Animal Planet and anAKC website I frequent, and, I never claimed to be a policewoman or airport official, and, if pressed, I would have pressed charges. Fakers are usually cowards and when confronted she did nothing to defend her self, as a true service dog handler would have done. They stopped her and looked at the documents she had brandished at them, but not shown them, and guess what they were? Blank printer paper. Some people have a lot of nerve, and some people mistake this for just confidents, not faked bravado. Another poster said that as a small business owner that the bridal store owner was exempt from the law. That is utter BS and ignorance. If this were true than all of the uninformed cabbies who own their own taxies and get sued every year for refusing to transport guide dogs or trying to charge extra for them, would not be losing their cases which are won by the guide dog handlers.
Comment by Heather — March 16, 2010 @ 12:50 pm