Is Justice a service dog? Court says no
By Phyllis DeGioia
September 4, 2009
A complex can of worms was opened in Wisconsin over a lawsuit filed by a man named Steven Bottila, who has seizures, and his untrained service dog named Justice. At the heart of the matter is whether or not Justice, who learned by his own instinct to alert his owner that a seizure is about to begin, is a service dog who can be protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ADA’s definition of a service animal is:
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.
Once again there’s the critical word: trained. The ADA says that a service dog has to be individually trained to perform specific tasks for someone’s specific, i.e., guide dogs are trained to lead the blind, and other dogs are trained to perform such tasks as turning on lights, opening refrigerator doors, and picking up for folks with limited mobility who are often in wheelchairs. If the dog is not trained for specific tasks for the specific disability, the dog is not considered a service dog under the ADA. Justice, a German shepherd mixed breed, effectively alerts Bottila so that he can use a device implanted under his skin, but was not trained by anyone, not even Bottila.
In September 2007 Bottila was refused entrance to a restaurant because of Justice. The following July Bottila filed a lawsuit against the city alleging that the police violated his civil rights under ADA. Other incidents followed until the one in May 2009 that made big news: the police were called to remove Bottila and Justice from a McDonald’s. The police said Bottila was confrontational, and Bottila said he had the right to sit there after he was through eating (he was waiting for a bus). The incident ended with the police using a Taser and pepper spray on Bottila before arresting him. Justice was taken to the local shelter.
Bottila and the Madison police seem to have quite a record of butting heads again and again over the issue of Justice’s public access.
Madison Police Capt. Vic Wahl said Bottila — who has filed a federal lawsuit against the department and discrimination complaints against local businesses — has made a “hobby” of inciting confrontations over the issue and has told officers he sees “it as an opportunity to make a living off of lawsuits against police.” [ ...] Yet federal and state laws give people with disabilities wide latitude to take their service dogs into places where animals normally aren’t allowed. And the Madison Police Department has established protocols for dealing with the issue – created specifically in response to past contacts with Bottila – although records show officers have dealt with complaints from businesses inconsistently.
Sure, police have been known to lie. And sure, people have been known to lie to police. Who knows what really happened in the Taser incident. Were the police in their rights to subdue him with force? I don’t think so. Has Bottila made a “hobby” of inciting confrontations? It sounds like it to me. (See a Wisconsin State Journal article about the incident as well as Bottila’s comments at this Topix site.) Is he purposely trying to make a living by suing the police? I don’t think so. I think he is genuinely trying to get his civil rights, but I think the way he’s chosen to go about it is a poor choice. He won’t put a vest of any sort on Justice – legally he doesn’t have to, but if I was in his situation and had been tossed out of stores and restaurants on suspicion of using ADA as a scam to keep my dog with me (and I feel very strongly that pretending you have a service dog is wrong), you bet I’d get a vest to try to ease the confusion.
For the trial that had nothing to do with the Taser incident, Bottila was not allowed to bring Justice into the courtroom because the city argued that whether Justice “is a bona fide service animal or merely a pet is a disputed fact in this case.”
Bottila represented himself, which I always think is a big mistake, and lost the suit. He has said he will appeal. This case had such possible impact for disabled people that I wish it had been handled by a lawyer. Bottila cannot afford a lawyer. I hope he can get some help for his appeal.
Gratuitous note: Check out the movie Music Within about the man who was the driving force behind ADA, a Vietnam vet who lost his hearing during combat; his best friend was a man with cerebral palsy, played wonderfully by Michael Sheen; I didn’t realize the character was played by Sheen until the end credits rolled.
Interesting Gina! I would be curious if there are witnesses that the dog does indeed alert to seizures. Seizure alert dogs are very hard to train and cost more than 2x as much as other service dogs. Certainly there are dogs who have this gift without any training at all and it would then be possible to find someone who would help certify the dog. It does sound very confrontational, and to be in public the dog would need to pass a public access test. Seizure disorders often contribute to brain damage. I am with you, I hope a high powered ADA lawyer steps in and takes this case. There are lots of wrongs to be righted and precedents to be set on this one.
Comment by Nancy Freedman-Smith CPDT — September 4, 2009 @ 6:58 am
Not me! Phyllis. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 4, 2009 @ 7:00 am
Poor Nancy! After getting caught out on this kind of thing a couple of times myself, I’m getting better at remembering to check for those bylines!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 4, 2009 @ 7:04 am
The key is: If the post is cranky/ranty, it’s probably me or Christie. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 4, 2009 @ 7:06 am
Lol, tucks tail and says sorry! Nice job Phyllis.
Comment by Nancy Freedman-Smith CPDT — September 4, 2009 @ 7:50 am
ADA doesn’t specify a public access test. Good service dog organizations insist on them, as do the conscientious among private trainers and owner-trainers of service dogs.
I’ve seen animals that were passed off as “service dogs” that were (a) no such damned thing, and/or (b) absolutely unfit to be in public in any way, shape, or form.
This is a problem in the ADA. I don’t have a huge problem with a physician prescribing a service dog and there being a lack of gubbmint quality assurance that the dog is performing that specific function. I have a ginormous problem with any dog owner claiming a right to public access when the animal is not trained and handled to be safe and inoffensive in public, and is not maintained to be clean and inoffensive.
Comment by H. Houlahan — September 4, 2009 @ 8:02 am
We - Kindred Spirits - do require a very specific public access test, along with very good obedience skills, prior to certifying any dog as a service dog. We have turned more people/dogs away than accepted into our program because far too many people simply want the access with their dogs.
Of course we run into that with the therapy dog training, too. Some people feel that if their dog is certified as a therapy dog, the dog can go anywhere with them. We dispell that on the first day of therapy dog class and have had several people just get up and leave. Apparently that was the only reason they came to class.
Oh well.
Comment by Liz Palika — September 4, 2009 @ 9:17 am
I’m contemplating in my own head whether or not it would be a good idea for ADA to require a public access test. There are pros and cons to it.
What fries me more than anything are people who just want to have their pet along and claim the dog is a service dog. It’s easy enough to buy a vest and get away with it as long as the dog is as well behaved as a trained service dog. People who fake it deserve their own ring in hell (Dante’s eighth circle is for frauds, so they alreay have one).
wow, that was pretty cranky…
Comment by Phyllis DeGioia — September 4, 2009 @ 10:17 am
One of the biggest cons, in my eyes, to requiring certification is accessibility — what about the person with a disability who has no means to get his/her dog to an appropriate trainer or facility for certification? Or who cannot afford to have their dog evaluated (would the evaluation be provided for free? By whom?). Who certifies the certifiers, to ensure that they’re knowledgable enough to administer the test? What provisions are there for an appeals process for people whose dogs are denied certification? Who makes the call on whether a person’s specific medical condition (particularly a psychiatric one) qualifies as a disability or not? Doctors? Lawyers?
For persons with physical disabilities, the process would no doubt be similar to whatever process is used to issue disabled parking permits/placards. But it’s the folks wtih psychiatric and other “invisible” disabilities who could be most affected here.
Don’t get me wrong — I, too, wish all kinds of cooties and ill will on folks who abuse the very lax laws and simply want public access with their pets. In fact, I used to work for many years for an assistance dog program that trained dogs for Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, and the phone calls I’d field each and every day from people who wanted “certification” simply so they could take their untrained but beloved pet into restaurants and on airplanes were astonishing. But I could usually help them understand the difference between a pet and an assistance dog by saying, “You know, I feel a lot happier when I go places with my dog, too, but if I DON’T have my dog with me, it does not limit one or more major life activities, which is the definition of a disability.”
I worry that mandatory certification would severely limit the lives of people with legitimate self-trained assistance dogs, and infringing on the rights of the disabled is definitely not something I want to see happen. It’s a sticky issue, but when in doubt, I prefer to err on the side of greater accessibility.
Comment by Dee Dee — September 4, 2009 @ 11:58 am
What Dee Dee said!
My SD has immeasurably improved my quality of life. My disability is an invisible (but very well documented, in existance and treatment for more than half my life). But people like this guy make me SO nervous, because they make folks with invisible disabilities look like grasping idiots- and tighter laws hurt more than they help.
Business owners already have the right to deny access to badly behaved dogs. A lot of them are too gunshy after sue-happy folks like this, and it results in cries to restrict service dogs to certified or school trained, or whatever! That’s not going to be good, but I worry that it will happen.
Comment by Cait — September 4, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
I worry about people with invisible disabilities being subjected to challenges. I don’t know this guy, but do know that seizure alert dogs aren’t taught as much as have their innate ability shaped into an alert behavior.
My friends with epilepsy are terrified that they’ll be in a public place, have a seizure, and wake up with no teeth because some moron through it was a good idea to put a spoon in their mouth “so they won’t choke on their tongue.”
The guy sounds like he has mental health issues, too. Not putting a vest on the dog looks like he’s baiting people.
I’m concerned about program-trained dogs that have slipped in their training, and nobody’s doing any re-certs. Some become dog-reactive or too stressed to work, and nobody’s advocating for those dogs.
Unfortunately, I’ve also seen too many people who are program training inappropriate dogs. They get attached and try to make the dog into something it isn’t.
We shouldn’t assume that every program-trained dog meets all the standards, but you would hope they’d at least do re-certs every two years.
Comment by Becky — September 4, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
I think there can be a remarkable bond between people and dogs, therefore I think it entirely possible that a dog could help provide an alert to their human companion that a seizure is forthcoming. However, dogs have other keenly developed senses and may be distracted by the appearance of another animal, a scent, or noise.
So, my opinion is that it may be placing too much pressure on a dog for them to be the sole alert system for a human, regardless of the human’s ailment. That opinion aside, it could be that the dog’s keen senses and other methods of detecting an oncoming seizure could be used in combination to help their human companion/guardian.
Comment by Karen Eichelberger, Editor — September 4, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
I’m owner training and am a good service dog handler and I would be up crap creek if I wasn’t able to owner train.
So of the very best SDs I’ve seen have been owner trained as well as some of the very worst.
Comment by Amanda — September 4, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
LOTS of dogs will “alert” a seizure and many other health problems and “training” is arguably a 2 way street. This guy and his dog trained each other and the guy has a chip on his shoulder which may be well founded (or could be part and parcel of his disabilities). I’ve had mild absence seizures off and on for decades and have had a Lab and a Shiba who could alert them. Fortunately, I didn’t need them with me in public as there are some other adaptive techniques that worked for me.
When my seizures were first diagnosed, the first thing my doctor told me was to keep it out of my records so I wouldn’t lose my driver’s license and, being a college student health center, they were able to do all the diagnostic work and “lose” it. The world has not always been so accommodating of disabilities, especially “invisible” ones.
I don’t know anything about this case but, if he argued “instinct” instead of cooperative training, he did some poor pro se lawyering. Hope he finds an ADA lawyer who can get him a new trial (perhaps for ineffective assistance of counsel :).
Comment by PJBoosinger — September 5, 2009 @ 2:11 am
Karen, most people are using combination or the dog is last resort.
Service dogs are trained to ignore distractions. My dog has gotten to point were he always alerts.
Comment by Amanda — September 5, 2009 @ 4:29 am
Certification is the only way to avoid these problems. Here’s a wonderful story on how Carl, who is blind, got his service dog Kiva: http://www.thedailytail.com/?p=2043
Comment by Daniela Caride — September 5, 2009 @ 9:05 am
Certification hurts disabled people. If the laws were enforced we wouldn’t need certification.
Unless you really think the government is going to have equal access to a tester everywhere in the US.
Comment by Amanda — September 5, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
This is an example of why certification could be harmful to a disabled person and did harm this child by her being effectively excluded from school, discriminated against, forced to forgo her privacy, and subject herself and her disability to public review. “Della can detect when I am going to have a seizure … We did not know that Della would do this until after I had my first seizure with Della present on May 20, 2009. The last time I had a seizure prior this one was in April 27, 2005. So when I started working with Della I had no idea that she could do this or that my seizures would ever start again.” Heather had acquired Della in January for entirely different reasons. http://www.amrottclub.org/2009.....ella.shtml
How many disabled people would merely live poorer lives because they can’t fight the way this young lady did? I’m guessing thousands and that may also mean thousands of pound/rescue dogs that could be providing services to the disabled instead of dying too. While I understand the distinction some in the SD community want to make and why, it does all of us with disabilities a disservice to fight amongst ourselves on drawing bright lines instead of evaluating cases individually and, preferably, within our own community. I, for one, don’t need the government or any agency in my personal life any more than absolutely necessary. I’d prefer not to have my disability details in the newspaper OR a government file just to have an SD with me. I like the little illusion that I still have some tiny bit of privacy, even if it is more delusion than illusion :)
Comment by PJBoosinger — September 6, 2009 @ 2:19 am
There are also those of use who owner train that didn’t have a choice in the matter and bought a well bred dog just for that purpose.
I hold my dog to the same standards as any other service dog.
Comment by Amanda — September 6, 2009 @ 6:17 am
A hotly debated, but simple solution to the whole issue; one I have discussed before>
Allow access to mannerly dogs who can pass a test of reliability in public places. That way the disabled can hold on to their dignity and privacy and people with obedient dogs are not excluded to the degree that they are now.
It would certainly go a long way to exclude/fine/punish people who have little regard for their animal’s impact on teh community at large and pave the way for acceptance of the presence of mannerly dogs in public.
A simple test can be administered by the same officials that administer licenses, like Rockville Maryland and other jurisdictions that allow off leash or public access to dogs who have proven their reliability under a variety of circumstances.
There are several such tests being developed currently or are already in place. Now it’s just a matter of selling the idea to the community officials on a town by town basis.
Comment by Linda Kaim — September 6, 2009 @ 10:02 am
On a town by town basis? What happens if the towns decide not to do it?
I already have the legal right to have my Sd with me and a business owner has the right to kick out unruly dogs.
Comment by Amanda — September 6, 2009 @ 11:33 am
“I already have the legal right to have my Sd with me and a business owner has the right to kick out unruly dogs.”
Thank you, Amanda! Speaking as a disabled person who has had an assistance dog for 8 years, you are correct. We do not need additional legislation or certification. Certification will hurt disabled people and do nothing to prevent non-disabled people from trying to pawn off their pets as service dogs. A certificate can easily be faked.
Conversations with pro-certification people have made it clear what a nightmare certification would be. First, people with mobility problems will be required to travel to get their service dogs certified, or be required to allow intrusive strangers into their homes. Second, certification programs will be run by ninnies who have no clue about how real dogs behave and who are scared witless by anything that isn’t a foo-foo dog or a happy smilely Golden Retriever type of dog. You can bet German Shepherds will quickly be outlawed as service dogs. You can kiss the magnificent Fidelco German Shepherd guide dogs goodbye. Why? Because they would protect their owners if they were violently attacked. In the eyes of the certification folks, this makes the dog “dangerous.” And no doubt disabled people will be required to pay a hefty fee to be abused by the certification process.
As a disabled person, I resent the implication that disabled people are mentally unfit, unable to figure out whether their dogs behave well in public. Rude canine behavior is crystal clear to anyone with even half a brain. Rest assured that disabled people can manage their lives and their service dogs without the help of the “superior” non-disabled people.
I have never seen anyone try to pawn off a pet as a service dog. It seems to be rather rare and not a major social problem. Or maybe this is because I’m too busy dealing with people harassing me about my service dog to notice any fake ones. That kind of harassment is the real problem.
Comment by SusanS — September 6, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
Comment by SusanS — September 6, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
As a disabled person, I resent the implication that disabled people are mentally unfit, unable to figure out whether their dogs behave well in public.
SusanS, you can resent it all you want, but the fact remains that every day dog owners of ALL kinds bring poorly-behaved dogs out in public and if challenged on it, deny it altogether. It’s the same kind of “blinders” as those worn by parents of unruly children who become extremely angry should anyone dare to imply their kids behavior would be a problem for anyone. I don’t know you, so I have no idea how well-behaved your particular dog is. But the problem of owners denying the bad behavior of dogs in their care is widespread, and ends up hurting ALL dog owners (be they SD owners or not).
So I’m intrigued by Linda’s “reliability test”, but concerned that it would have the same potential failings cited here as the certification tests (i.e. Who makes the rules, who tests, who enforces, and how do you know they have a clue?) It puts me in mind of the oft-suggested ideas that breeders should have to pass a “test” to breed, and the same kinds of objections to that proposals (as well as the counter charges by people who think breeders SHOULD be tested and just don’t get why it should be such a big deal).
Anyway, it would be interesting to read some specific examples of the “reliability tests” and how they’re being implemented. Linda, do you have any URLs we can visit?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 6, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
I have never seen anyone try to pawn off a pet as a service dog. It seems to be rather rare and not a major social problem.
Comment by SusanS — September 6, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
I went to the bank a few months ago, in my town of ~30,000 people. It was a cool spring day, so I left my well-trained dog in the car. Imagine my surprise when the person in front of me in the bank line-up had their dog - a large dog, no vest, wearing a prong collar, and wandering all over, greeting people, sniffing the floor, and completely, 100% ignoring the owner who kept telling the dog to “come”, “sit”, “down”, etc.
I’ll sign over my bank account to you if that dog was, as the owner said when I questioned it’s presence, a “service dog”.
So yes, it does happen. And yes, it did annoy me - as it should annoy anyone that supports *real* service dogs. It’s similar to people who park in the handicapped spots when they do not need to.
This isn’t a fight against disabled people, but against poorly trained dogs and the idiots that dare to call them “service” dogs.
Comment by K.B. — September 6, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
For all of you -
I am Stephen M Bottila, the Plaintiff/Victim of this matter, so please read w/care:
As I pursue my Civil Rights effort, pertaining to my SA rights, I assure you that I am disabled, just as well as my dog, Justice, is in fact a service animal. (BTW: Judge Crabb did permit him into her Courtroom; contrary to article’s statement.)
Each trial I face is a decisionary trial, thereafter pertaining your own Civil Rights. The outcomes pertain not just to myself, or my dog, or my opponent; they pertain, rather, to the Status of the ADA, overall - that includes your own Civil Rights, as one never knows when they may become disabled, or meet someone who is. Outcomes also pertain to the destiny of our Government, as people are getting more & more disgusted about our Court system. Respect not me; I don’t care, about that. But, realize it is not I, who thou shall respect; rather, respect yourselves and each other, to uphold the laws, the way in which “We, the People, of the United States…” want them to be upheld. For those of you who insist on training, one must wonder where you were, when the Amended Guidelines (ADAAG) were being debated. Did any one of you take part, in expressing your oppositions? If so, then good; if not, then you have nothing to say, now. Our Forefathers did not sign the Constitution, or the Delcaration, solely for personal benefit, as some of you believe I am doing. They signed it, rather, on behalf of all People - just as I intend to pursue my Civil Rights effort. Join to oppose, or join to uphold; but let’s all set the laws straight, to be the way we wish them to be. So far, training credentials have been prohibited. Have a good day.
Comment by Stephen M Bottila — September 6, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
BTW… I have seen well-groomed PETS, just as I have seen well-groomed people; I have also seen the opposite of each. I have seen rude, disruptive people, just as I have seen the same kind of people. Did you get your tetanus shot, your flu shot, and so forth, before going out for coffee? How about your dog getting their rabies shot? Did you bring your birth certificate or naturalization papers, as you went? How about your dog’s training papers?
Whether or not my dog is a service animal, as he actually is, is irrelevant. The fact is, that the best solution to this bureacracy, is to permit animals inside, under the presumption of behavioral standards - just as we do, with our fellow people. I believe it is Germany, and Italy, who practice this “FREEDOM”, already. Here, in the alleged “Land of the Free”, we must leave our dogs at home?! Why is that?
Comment by Stephen M Bottila — September 6, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
“This isn’t a fight against disabled people, but against poorly trained dogs and the idiots that dare to call them “service” dogs.”
Certification is a fight against disabled people, since they are the only ones targeted.
A “public access” requirement for all dogs would have what is called “disparate impact” on disabled people—it would hurt them the most, since they have a harder time getting around (and therefore getting to the certification place) and, typically, lower incomes to pay fees with.
I don’t dispute that some people pawn off pets as service dogs. I’ve simply never personally seen it, so it doesn’t seem to be a common occurrence. Nor do I think people should fry in hell for it.
The bank with the customer who let his unruly dog roam around should have kicked the dog out, which it had every right to do even if the dog was a service dog. So why is there a problem? Stores/banks/etc. have all the legal ammunition they need to deal with an unruly dog, service dog or not. If they fail to do so, I don’t understand why I should be penalized by certification requirements.
Now a public access certification requirement for parents with young children—that would at least target a major problem! I can’t tell you how many times my service dog has been poked, pinched, suddenly stared in the face (nose to nose), and so on by out-of-control kids. He is, of course, totally unflappable about all this or I wouldn’t have him as a service dog.
Comment by SusanS — September 6, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
KB, the bank should have kicked that dog out. They are allowed to do that. We don’t need certification, we need the laws enforced.
Comment by Amanda — September 6, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
Welcome aboard, Mr. Botilla, and now that you’re here, I hope you don’t mind a question. I’m certainly in favor of litigation when necessary. However, your dog would have legal access (assuming mannerly behavior) if he were trained to do several tasks for you (such as providing support to you when getting up after a seizure, providing support to you in walking after a seizure, and carrying your things in a backpack). Also, it helps a bit if an assistance dog wears a highly visible backpack or vest that says “assistance dog” in big letters. I say “a bit” because my service dog wears such a backpack and we get harassed anyway. So why did you not take this approach to the problem? Is it because the real goal is to allow all well-mannered dogs access to public places? This is worthwhile, but it has nothing to do with the ADA or the rights of disabled people.
By the way, the reason Germans get to take their dogs almost everywhere is because their dogs are typically extremely well trained. In America, dogs are typically untrained, rude, obnoxious brats.
Comment by SusanS — September 7, 2009 @ 4:11 am
There is a link of a jurisdiction in my area who has instituted the reliability test for quite a few years now. They base their licensing on three criterion; that the dog have either an AKC CD title or higher, or be able to pass a pass or fail test in an open area, much like an off leash CGC exam. You can find more here:
http://www.rockvillemd.gov/pol.....leash.html
It is not punitive to people with disabilities. Rather it allows people with well mannered pets to enjoy them publicly. With the off leash reliability test, all people would be held to the same standard, without having to disclose disabilities. If your dog can pass, therefore your dog is entitled to be in public places otherwise off limits to dogs.
I have worked with owner/trainers and their service dogs, I know the troubles they endure. I have been witness to many things regarding the development and training of service dogs and the accusations many face with disabilities that are not clearly visible to others.
The disabled handler and their dog would not have to travel any further than wherever they get their licenses from the tests are designed to be pass or fail much like a CGC and can be administered by virtually anybody.
In Europe there is no problem with public access for dogs on public transportation, in restaurants, libraries, courtrooms and any other place there are large numbers of people.
I and several colleagues have advocated for years the recognition of well trained dogs in public, several of us have either directly trained them or assisted owner trained teams.
People who try to pass off their pet as a service dog are the bane of my existence too.
If people could demonstrate that their dog is safe, it should not be limited to those with disabilities, but to everyone who can demonstrate reliable obedience and safety of their dog in public.
Those that can’t can have an opportunity to recert in a reasonable time-frame or lose the privilege of having their dog in public.
Comment by Linda Kaim — September 7, 2009 @ 6:04 am
Amanda,
Sorry I didn’t address this in the other post.
If any jurisdiction decides not to participate, the recourse for SD’s would be the same as it already is as outlined by the ADA.
This is an equalizer, not a means to shut out any individual that can demonstrate the soundness and work ethic of their dog. Including the disabled.
Comment by Linda Kaim — September 7, 2009 @ 6:14 am
Comment by SusanS — September 7, 2009 @ 4:11 am
“it helps a bit if an assistance dog wears a highly visible backpack or vest that says “assistance dog” in big letters. I say “a bit” because my service dog wears such a backpack and we get harassed anyway. So why did you not take this approach to the problem? Is it because the real goal is to allow all well-mannered dogs access to public places? This is worthwhile, but it has nothing to do with the ADA or the rights of disabled people.”
And this kind of goes to another aspect of this that we haven’t really touched on here - health codes. *In general* - I really like the concept that I should be able to take my well-mannered dog anywhere I go, whether he’s a Service Dog or not.
But there is that one exception of existing Health Codes that specifically prohibit dogs from places where food is prepared and eaten, etc. And as long as those Health Codes are in place, I can certainly see and understand how a dog without a vest would be asked to leave. The business owner is risking their license to continue to do business if they violate the Health Codes after all.
So while the Health Codes are in place, I have a hard time seeing around the need for a Service Dog to wear a vest in order to be allowed access.
Thoughts on this?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 7, 2009 @ 6:26 am
“Whether or not my dog is a service animal, as he actually is, is irrelevant.”
With all due respect, Mr. Bottila, I strongly disagree. If you wish to use the rights given to disabled people granted from the ADA, you have to follow their rules, even if you disagree with them.
My apologies for the error about allowing Justice into the courtroom. I was stating what I read in the State Journal.
Comment by Phyllis DeGioia — September 7, 2009 @ 8:20 am
Interesting post by trainer Laurie Luck on why a dog with a SD vest might NOT be well-mannered at times — because he’s in training!
http://smartdog.typepad.com/sm.....ining.html
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 7, 2009 @ 8:53 am
There is one group that would benefit greatly from certification or “public access” requirements—trainers. What a great way to drum up involuntary business! And what a racket!
Most assistance dogs work closely with their owners on leash, and off-leash testing and training requirements are entirely unnecessary and burdensome. Asking the dog to do a down-stay while the owner leaves would be entirely contrary to the prior training of many assistance dogs.
You don’t hear many disabled people clamoring for certification, do you? It’s the trainers who are trying to cram it down our throats. My response: Mind your own business, and leave me and my service dog alone. If you get your way, you will cause endless grief to disabled people who have far too many problems already.
Comment by SusanS — September 7, 2009 @ 8:54 am
As a trainer of service dogs, I think there’s a middle ground. There needs to be some sort of test to be sure the dog is safe to have in public. Not only for the person with the disability, but for the public in general. Just like people have to have tests before they get their driver’s license.
I think the individual service dog agencies should be allowed to test their dogs (and recipients) to ensure the team works well together.
If a dog is being trained independently, that team need not hire a trainer, but simply be certified by an independent organization that they are able to work together safely in public.
Comment by Laurie Luck, CPDT — September 7, 2009 @ 9:14 am
There seem to be a few separate but related issues here:
1) Should Service Dogs be required to wear vests in order to gain access?
2) Should Service Dogs (and all dogs) have to demonstrate their ability to exhibit reliable behavior to be permitted in public places via a test administered by the local jurisdiction?
3) (3 and 2 seem to be closely related) Should Service Dogs be required to be Certified in order to be Service Dogs?
4) When a business owner sees a person and their (vestless) dog entering his/her place of business, what is an appropriate response?
5) How is the answer to #4 modified if the business is subject to Department of Health Codes that specify an animal on the premesis (except Service Dogs) constitute a violation?
The discussion seems to meander back and forth among these points, and it gets very confusing. I will say, however, that it *appears* to me that Mr. Botilla would like to be able to take his dog (assuming good behavior) into any public place he wants to (including those that are subject to Health Codes) without a vest, without the need to demonstrate certification or training, and without being constrained from this access. It *appears* that SusanS’s position is virtually identical except that she sees the usefulness of having the dog wear the vest.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 7, 2009 @ 9:14 am
I’m not getting the objection to having the dog be required to wear a vest. Can anyone explain? Is it because it makes a person stand out as someone with a disability? But doesn’t having a SD already do that?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 7, 2009 @ 9:22 am
“The disabled handler and their dog would not have to travel any further than wherever they get their licenses”
What “licenses?” According to the Department of Justice:
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.
http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm
In other words: It is a violation of the ADA to require disabled people to get licenses for their service dogs. I would think that someone who claims that she has “worked with owner/trainers and their service dogs,” that she knows “the troubles they endure,” and that she has “been witness to many things regarding the development and training of service dogs” would know such a basic fact.
Believe it or not, disabled people are quite capable of deciding what works best for them. The last thing we need is the patronizing “help” of folks who claim they know what we endure.
Comment by SusanS — September 7, 2009 @ 9:28 am
SusanS, settle down. I think she was referring to where we ALL get our licenses for things like cars, driving, etc.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 7, 2009 @ 9:35 am
“would like to be able to take his dog (assuming good behavior) into any public place he wants to (including those that are subject to Health Codes) without a vest, without the need to demonstrate certification or training, and without being constrained from this access. It *appears* that SusanS’s position is virtually identical except that she sees the usefulness of having the dog wear the vest.”
Yep. It’s also the position of the Department of Justice. That’s the law (the ADA). The DOJ folks actually think disabled folks can handle the responsibility. Imagine that.
“There needs to be some sort of test to be sure the dog is safe to have in public.”
Huh? Are there horror stories about assistance dogs attacking people? News to me. Now we’ve gone from “the dog might be rude and I just can’t bear it” to “the dog might savagely tear people to bits”?
Comment by SusanS — September 7, 2009 @ 9:36 am
ADA does NOT require a vest? Then how would a business owner (especially one operating under health codes) be expected to know they’re required to grant access?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 7, 2009 @ 9:40 am
“ADA does NOT require a vest? Then how would a business owner (especially one operating under health codes) be expected to know they’re required to grant access?”
He/she asks if the dog is a service dog, and can also ask what tasks the dog performs for the disabled person. You can find the rules at:
http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm
Comment by SusanS — September 7, 2009 @ 9:47 am
“I’m not getting the objection to having the dog be required to wear a vest. Can anyone explain? Is it because it makes a person stand out as someone with a disability? But doesn’t having a SD already do that?”
Gina, that’s a good question, and I gave it some thought. My service dog wears a bright red backpack with “Assistance Dog” on both sides. That clearly flags me as a disabled person. When I’m walking on the street between stores or in a parking lot, I would not be flagged like that if the dog were not wearing the backpack. The identifying backpack is useful only when I’m in the store. But it would be very difficult because of my disability to keep popping the backpack on and off the dog. So the backpack flags me as disabled in areas where I would otherwise be just someone walking a dog. I don’t care about this, but others might.
I had “Assistance Dog” embroidered on my dog’s backpack as a courtesy, so store people and others wouldn’t have to ask. As I mentioned, I get hassled a lot anyway, but many folks are fine. The best places, in my experience, are bookstores. The people there usually seem genuinely pleased to have an assistance dog in the store.
And, yes, my dog is impeccably well-mannered. This is, by the way, about 90% temperament and only about 10% training (although he is very well trained).
Comment by SusanS — September 7, 2009 @ 10:33 am
Thanks for the explanation. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 7, 2009 @ 10:54 am
One of the posts has given a very good foreshadowing of how certification would work—the post that suggests that disabled people should be required to put an AKC CD title or higher on their dogs, or have their dogs pass an off leash CGC exam. (Never mind that none of this has anything to do with the service dog’s performance of his/her function.) This recommendation makes it very clear that the poster has either spent very little time, if any, working with disabled people and their service dogs, or, if she has spent time with them, hasn’t listened to them. The folks pushing for this kind of nonsense will be the ones in charge of certification, and the ones running the certification classes (and making big bucks in the process).
Let’s see how certification would work in a specific case—say, an elderly lady who has been blessed with a toy poodle who alerts her to impending seizures. (This is an extremely rare canine ability that can’t be taught.) The dog has also been trained to do some tasks to help the owner deal with her arthritis, so she meets the ADA requirements. The dog is deeply attached to her owner and cries and wails if separated from her. The dog is also a bit shy with strangers, although never aggressive in any way no matter how great the provocation. But she ducks away when people ignore the do-not-pet sign on her vest and try to pet her anyway. She has had no formal training, but settles happily and quietly in her owner’s lap wherever she is taken. In her many years of faithful service, she has never caused a problem of any kind. On two occasions, she has saved her owner’s life.
But now all of that is suddenly worth nothing because the trainers have succeeded in trampling over the needs and wishes of disabled people. The dog must be certified! So her owner, who cannot drive, must find someone to drive her to the certification facility. On a limited income, she must come up with a hefty certification processing fee as well. With considerable difficulty, she finds someone to drive her and scrapes up the money.
The dog fails certification and is declared unfit to be a service dog. She will not stay calm and relaxed when a stranger takes her away from her owner—her wails pierce the sky. She ducks away when strangers try to pet her. She does not heel smartly enough. And her owner is told that if she ever attempts to use her dog as a service dog again, she will be arrested and jailed.
That is why so many disabled people are so strongly opposed to certification.
Comment by SusanS — September 7, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
Thank you SusanS, your explanations are compelling and thought-provoking.
Comment by LauraS — September 7, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
Dee Dee’s thoughtful questions in #9 above are exactly the kind of questions that I often ponder regarding certification of service animals. Since there are people who take advantage of the system, it is clear that life may become more difficult for those who rely on their service animals to live independently.
SusanS offers good points in comment #46. However, the transportation issue is probably not as serious as addressing the following issues: (1) who is qualified to certify the service animal? (2) how should service animals (in general) behave? (3) how can the decision denying certification be appealed?
Those who think this is not a big social problem might want to read a recent New York Times article at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/03/us/03dogs.html as well as Beth Finke’s blog post where she describes that she has personally seen people take advantage of the system and commit fraud in http://bethfinke.wordpress.com.....-the-line/
I live in New Jersey and have seen dogs in the stores and malls. Most don’t wear vests. Often, I see small dogs in carry-on bags. Maybe they’re service animals. But since I respect the privacy of others, and since I don’t own a store or mall, I don’t ask whether their dogs are truly service dogs. I have no idea, but I do see them quite often.
Comment by Matthew Stoloff — September 7, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
Thanks for the links, Matthew. My point is simply that certification will cause far more harm to disabled people than fakes do. And many of the fakes will just get fake certification papers, so certification won’t even solve the fakery problem.
The best solution is to promptly kick rude dogs out, whether they are service dogs or not. This will strongly discourage the fakes, whose untrained dogs are far more likely than service dogs to be ill-mannered, without hurting disabled people.
Comment by SusanS — September 7, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
Susan S. you are my new favorite person. I am very lucky that in my state I have access with my dog while he’s in training. Of course you have to wait until obedience is down pat, but I like the challenge of working in the real world. Although I am very impressed by the giude dog programs who trained their dogs without public access for years.
I’ve found that owner training with them help of a program really was the best choice for me, because my dog started alerting to 3 different conditions at 6 months old, after only being home from the breeders for two months. He is o perfect and so attuned to me that he is helping me live my life better right now. I was able to pick a breeder who had breed dogs that alerted to my conditions before and I think that is really what gave me such a jump start. That is not to say that all descendants of alerting dogs alert, but from what I’ve read and lived, it ups the odds.
In addition, Figaro, my Standard Poodle, is of course learning psychical tasks as he would have anyway, but the alerts are so helpful
Just one perspective on why someone wouldn’t want to go through a program.
Comment by Amanda — September 7, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
Thanks for your kind remarks, LauraS and Amanda! I’ve worked with my assistance dog for 8 years, and he’s taught me a lot. I think he deserves most of the credit!
Comment by SusanS — September 7, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
I’m torn about certification. I think in some ways it could be good, but I’d like to see it be something REALLY simple, like you went to your local DMV or HHS office (the second would probably be easier) and turned in a form signed by your doctor, accompanied by dog. You could be denied your ‘license’ if the dog acted rude or unmannerly (using some common sense description like “Does dog jump on people? Is dog able to sit quietly in the waiting room without soliciting attention from strangers? Does dog strain on leash, or vocalize more than absolutely necessary? If dog is small, is it ABLE to walk on a leash politely, or is it carried the whole time?”) - and leave the task stuff up to the courts.
But to implement that nationally, fairly? No way it’d ever happen.
Comment by Cait — September 7, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
SusanS: You’ve raised a really interesting solution to this puzzle. If I follow your logic correctly, it seems as though that it does not matter whether the animal is a service animal or not; all that matters is how well the animal behaves. If the animal behaves well, the animal may remain in the shop. But if the animal behaves badly, the shopkeeper may remove the animal. This sounds fairly straightforward, but it seems that your solution still permits people to lie about their disability and pawn their pet as “service animals.” After all, it is possible for persons who are not disabled to have well behaved animals that aren’t really “service animals.” People can pretend to have a disability and lie about their pet being “service animals.” How does your solution help fight those who lie about their disability and unlawfully pawn their pets as service animals? Just thinking out loud.
Cait: I hear you. It’s a really difficult issue, but “leaving the [service animal] tasks to the courts” is probably not a good idea. If we do that, the courts would be flooded with service animal law cases. Also, keep in mind that not all courts agree with each other. So, it’s probably better to have an organization or agency outside the courts to determine whether the animal can perform the tasks required of a particular service animal. In any event, I like your idea about implementing simple tests.
Comment by Matthew Stoloff — September 8, 2009 @ 4:40 am
@Matthew - the problem I see is that currently, there’s no agency set up to determine what’s a task and what’s not. I actually think the guidelines as written are pretty good, especially since abilities and needs can vary SO much even within identical diagnoses! To try and link task definition to a simple licensing system would require training a gazillion people to understand a complicated definition of what a task is (and honestly, I don’t think it gets any simpler than the current wording; I think some SD users jsut stretch it as far as they can!) rather than focusing on the part that really seems to cause the problem- badly behaved pseudo-SDs in public. It seems to me that requiring a doctor’s letter + simple common sense testing would address the problem without having to be too complicated.
Comment by Cait — September 8, 2009 @ 6:39 am
Matthew, Susan S didn’t raise a solution, she’s taking about the law as it is now.
Even if someone claims their dog is a service dog, if it is behaving badly, you are legal allowed to kick it out. It’s right on the ADA.gov website.
The laws as they are now just need to be enforced.
Comment by Amanda — September 8, 2009 @ 9:12 am
Cait: I liked reading what you had to say, especially when you said “abilities and needs can vary SO much even within identical diagnoses!” How true! Could I ask you to clarify what you meant by the doctor’s letter? Did you mean that a person with a disability should carry the letter and produce it upon request, or did you mean that the person needs the letter as proof that he or she needs a service animal?
Amanda: I re-read SusanS’ comment, and I disagree that she is “talking about the law as it is now.” SusanS wrote: “The best solution is to promptly kick rude dogs out, whether they are service dogs or not.” The key phrase is “whether they are service dogs or not.” Under the ADA, individuals with disabilities may be accompanied by their service animals. However, the ADA does not give people without disabilities the right to be accompanied by their companion pets. So, SusanS’ proposed solution (“to kick out dogs, whether they are service dogs or not”) suggests that *all* well behaved dogs are permitted in places of public accommodation, regardless of their status as service dogs. This is significantly different from what the ADA says. Anyway, it’s an interesting solution because it (1) protects the privacy of those who are disabled and (2) avoids the need for certification.
Comment by Matthew Stoloff — September 8, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
I took it as Susan talking about fakers, but I’m sure she’ll be beck to clarify.
The issue with allowing pet dogs everywhere is it only takes one second for you dog to attack my medically necessary service dog.
If America had a different dog culture, I might be inclined to agree with you but it doesn’t. Our idea of a well trained dog is at such a low standard as to be laughable.
Would I like more places to be dog friendly? Yes. Do I think it should be law? No.
Comment by Amanda — September 8, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
“But if the animal behaves badly, the shopkeeper may remove the animal. This sounds fairly straightforward, but it seems that your solution still permits people to lie about their disability and pawn their pet as “service animals.”
Realistically, of course it does—because this will cause far less harm than certification. And I emphasize, again, that certification will also permit people to lie about their disability and pawn their pets off as “service animals.” Doctor’s notes, certificates, whatever can all be faked.
And no, I am not proposing that all well-behaved dogs be permitted public access (although I don’t see any harm in this). If a man claims to be blind and to have a guide dog, and is later found reading the newspaper, his dog can be kicked out even if the dog is well behaved.
But to me, the problem is rude dogs, not fakers. If someone pawns off an extremely well behaved dog as a service dog, where is the harm? It’s still not right to do it, but it doesn’t harm disabled people. On the other hand, a person with a disability with an ill-mannered genuine service dog does hurt others.
The law provides the solution: Kick the rude dogs out.
Why are people so uncomfortable with the idea that disabled people are generally able to make their own decisions about service dogs? The goal of the ADA is to eliminate barriers, not create them. But so many non-disabled folks are sure they know what’s best for us.
Comment by SusanS — September 8, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
SusanS in one word, ableism. With all the people who think it’s a reasonable accommodation to carry someone in wheelchair, to the people shout “No dogs!” At my clearly vested dog, I’ve lost faith in the general public. The ADA has existed for almost 20 years and they still aren’t getting it.
If the laws that exist were enforced there would be no issue. Kick out the badly behaved dogs and and fine people as the law states.
Comment by Amanda — September 8, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
Also, why do I need my privacy protected? I wouldn’t have goon with an SD if I had cared and many people have no option to hide their disabilities. I’m not ashamed of myself.
Comment by Amanda — September 8, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
“Also, why do I need my privacy protected?”
Come now, Amanda, you just don’t know what’s best for yourself—and neither do I. I couldn’t care less about the privacy thing either when I go out with my service dog. But some posters have gone on about this, as if we couldn’t possibly make the right choices for ourselves.
Amanda, do you know any disabled people with service dogs who support certification? I don’t. To me, that says it all. But it seems to say nothing at all to so many non-disabled people. That’s why we have—and need—the ADA.
Comment by SusanS — September 8, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
Ever heard of HIIPA?
I hate to break this to you, but a legal right to privacy in matters of health conditions is not a subject that is exclusive to the disabled.
And just because SusanS and Amanda aren’t all that concerned about their privacy doesn’t mean that is the case for *every* disabled person. On this very thread, for example:
Comment by PJBoosinger — September 6, 2009 @ 2:19 am
“I like the little illusion that I still have some tiny bit of privacy, even if it is more delusion than illusion :)”
You’re making some good points, but continuing to speak as though you speak for *every* disabled person and slam those of us who are striving to understand (and don’t tell us to just “Go read the ADA”) can ultimately end up being counterproductive to your goal of getting people to listen supportively to the ideas you’re putting forth.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 9, 2009 @ 4:43 am
“continuing to speak as though you speak for *every* disabled person”
Since when? I said I don’t know any disabled people with service dogs who support certification. There may be some. If you know any, please encourage them to post here.
As for PJBoosinger’s post—wow, did you misrepresent her! She appears to be strongly opposed to certification, and the full quotation is:
“I, for one, don’t need the government or any agency in my personal life any more than absolutely necessary. I’d prefer not to have my disability details in the newspaper OR a government file just to have an SD with me. I like the little illusion that I still have some tiny bit of privacy, even if it is more delusion than illusion”
And she makes an excellent point. As the law now stands, you cannot ask a disabled person with a service dog what his/her disability is. Some may choose to discuss it anyway, but the option of privacy is there. But certification would strip away that privacy, requiring the disclosure of disability details to intrusive government bureaucrats, and the filing away of these details at a government agency. No thanks.
Striving to understand is one thing. Cramming certification down the throats of disabled people who strongly object to it is quite another.
Comment by SusanS — September 9, 2009 @ 8:28 am
I haven’t commented much on this thread because it’s simply not my area of expertise, and I generally try not to have opinions on topics I am an idiot about. (Something I encourage others in the larger population to try on other topics!)
That said, I am sooooo enjoying the discussion on this, which, although impassioned, is also largely relevant, informed and respectful.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 9, 2009 @ 8:56 am
“The law provides the solution: Kick the rude dogs out.”
Bravo!!
I don’t mind talking to people about my dog and my disability. Hearing dogs rock! But I shouldn’t have to talk about my disability to every store clerk and rentacop on a power trip. I do a lot of outreach to ADA eligible students here on campus. I have encouraged some folks to go the service dog route. I’ve discouraged others. On occasions of my choosing, I am very open about what having service dogs has meant to me. But I see no earthly good coming out of a certification process, and I can see much damage being done. Just throw the rude dogs out!
Comment by schnauzer — September 9, 2009 @ 9:14 am
The OTHER Pat, I never claimed to speak for every disabled person, but I did explain how this would hurt many disabled people. Maybe if the country was less spread out and less car centric, I might agree with you, but that simply isn’t the way it is.
Because I have psychiatric service dog there are those that don’t think I should be allowed an SD as the bulk of the fakers have PSDs. This is why I document every thing. Such as how long it takes Figaro to learn things and his level of accuracy. My training center makes me fill in my training log after every class and I keep notes at home.
Having an invisible disability and suddenly becoming visible is hard, but I wouldn’t give up the quality of life my SDIT has given me.
I feel so blessed that my state allows access for dogs in training and I would never do anything to hurt that.
My SDIT does real tasks and work and is a real SDIT.
Having warning before I am manic or have a panic attack is a good send. The fact that my boy is learning how to help bring me down from these things and doing guide work for when I dissociate brings me great piece of mind.
When he’s old enough he’s going to learn bracing work, because my medication makes me very dizzy some days. He already solves the issue of my meds sedating me to point I can’t hear alarms or my clock by waking me up in the morning and we are going to work with him on fire alarms.
It’s not only nice to have my SDIT with me, just as it would be with a pet dog, it’s a medical necessity. He is my lifeline. If Figaro is not with me, I must have a service human with me which greatly lessens the things I am able to do.
There is no cure for my mental disorders, sensory issues or developmental dyspraxia, but there is help and for the first time in my life, I feel hope.
Comment by Amanda — September 9, 2009 @ 11:00 am
schnauzer, You have a hearing dog? That’s awesome. That’s what my dogs aunt does for work.
Comment by Amanda — September 9, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Susan writes: “And she makes an excellent point. As the law now stands, you cannot ask a disabled person with a service dog what his/her disability is. Some may choose to discuss it anyway, but the option of privacy is there. But certification would strip away that privacy, requiring the disclosure of disability details to intrusive government bureaucrats, and the filing away of these details at a government agency. No thanks.”
********How would the requirement for certification strip you of your privacy? To be able to reliably demonstrate a skill is not to turn over your bank account information nor your social security number. I don’t understand how the two are related.
*******If ALL DOGS that appear in public must follow the same guidelines for behavior, it would move more to protect the rights of the disabled than disclose their disabilities.
Susan writes:”One of the posts has given a very good foreshadowing of how certification would work—the post that suggests that disabled people should be required to put an AKC CD title or higher on their dogs, or have their dogs pass an off leash CGC exam. (Never mind that none of this has anything to do with the service dog’s performance of his/her function.) This recommendation makes it very clear that the poster has either spent very little time, if any, working with disabled people and their service dogs, or, if she has spent time with them, hasn’t listened to them. The folks pushing for this kind of nonsense will be the ones in charge of certification, and the ones running the certification classes (and making big bucks in the process).”
****No, I did not. I provided an example of a community that allows for an off leash exemption if certain criterion were met. Also, the CGC is performed ON LEASH ONLY.
No one is advocating taking anyone’s dog from them, service dog or otherwise. Restricting public access to disruptive dogs, absolutely.
The test is for the demonstration of calm, non reactive behavior in public, that any and all dogs seen in public should be able to demonstrate, not the functions of their service to their disabled handler.
As for spending time with individuals with disabilities, I have, I am and I do. I coach owner handlers and have trained several SD’s to perform tasks for handlers that in no way could perform that training on their own. I don’t charge for these services.
As for the fees for the training, I don’t think there is anyone out there who devised these tests are charging for classes to pass them. Quite frankly, I train dogs capable of passing the CGC certification, AKC Novice, Open and Utility but I refuse to test dogs I have trained or had a part in their training. My students are tested independently every time they step into an AKC venue or attend a CGC test.
I allow the handlers to seek their own testers. I encourage them to. I know of quite a few owner handlers that are more than capable of training to that level, demonstrated by entries at AKC Rally, Obedience and CGC certifying events.
The communities that offer the tests charge no more for their administration than the cost of a county license. In Laurel, if I am not mistaken, it is the fee for the traditional dog license.
I would not charge anymore for training a dog to a level of certification, than what I do charge for group, private and residency training. I should hope that I did my job well enough for the owner handler to be able to take the dog and certify on their own.
But that opens up a whole new argument on the competency of trainers.
Comment by Linda Kaim — September 21, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
Let me just say we have dogs, not service dogs, just family dogs… dogs that have 5-6 years of obedience training. These dogs will work for anyone in our family - when released from working, they will jump, bark go a crazy, chase the cat… act like a dog. I know how much work is involved in training a dog just for obedience and Agility and can only think of how much more in involved training would be for a service dog. But what is anybody to do knowing somebody is saying a dog is a service dog and it is not. The dog is infested with fleas, is not current on shots, and does not task at all. But the people say it is a service dog and take into public places… what happens to these type of people, they do not get in any touble?
Comment by Rebecca — October 6, 2009 @ 5:36 am