********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.

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.

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!

That said, I am sooooo enjoying the discussion on this, which, although impassioned, is also largely relevant, informed and respectful.

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.

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.

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.