Service dogs: So many questions — and some answers
By Liz Palika
June 30, 2010
My last two posts regarding service dogs generated a lot of questions — good questions, too. I can’t speak for other service dog programs but I can explain what our trainers do.
Several years ago, Kindred Spirits Dog Training formed a nonprofit branch – Kindred Spirits Canine Education Center – and one of the goals was to help individual dog owners train their own service dog. We don’t have a kennel or place where we can find and train dogs and then place them with new owners, unlike Canine Companions for Independence. Plus we didn’t want to compete with CCI, because they do an awesome job. Instead, we wanted to help in another way.
So we work with individual dogs and their owners on a one-on-one basis. We work with a very few dogs and owners at a time. We don’t produce quantity, but we do strive for quality.
When approached by someone who wants a personal dog certified as a service dog, our first step is to have them go to their own doctor and get a prescription for a service dog. Since the law looks upon service dogs as a medical device/equipment, we want to make sure the dog is needed and how it is needed. I don’t care if the note is from a physician, psychologist or psychiatrist: I just want a prescription from the patient’s doctor. We keep a copy of that in our files for that dog and owner.
Then we meet with the dog and owner for an initial interview. We warn the people ahead of time that we’re going to be asking some personal questions — not to pry — but to make sure that this dog and owner are a good match for our program. Some questions we ask include: Why do you want this dog certified as a service dog? What is your disability that the dog can help? How do you see the dog helping you? What specifically do you want the dog to do?
If we’re not happy with the answers, we push for the answers. After all, if we accept this dog and owner into our program, we’re going to be spending considerable time, effort and expertise with them. We need to weed out the unsuitable teams before we get started.
If the dog owner doesn’t have a good idea of what he wants the dog to do, we send him home to think about this some more, and then we’ll meet with him again. If the person simply wants his dog to accompany him everywhere, we don’t accept them into our program. If the owner is asking too much of the dog, we don’t accept them into our program. We know our skills, our abilities, and our level of expertise; if what the person is looking for doesn’t meld with us, we advise them to look elsewhere.
Then we evaluate the dog. We want a well socialized, stable, intelligent, thinking dog with as few bad habits as possible. We have turned away far too many dogs who were unsuitable because of aggression towards other dogs, aggression towards people, too little socialization and other characteristics that make the dog a risk to work in public.
We prefer that the dog have a good solid base of obedience, but if the dog is otherwise suitable we will help them with that, also. The dog isn’t accepted into our program until he has those skills. We want a good sit, down, stay, come off leash, heel, watch me and leave it. No jumping on people is allowed, nor is mouthing. Leg-lifting on every vertical item is not allowed either.
Once we accept a dog and owner into our program, we set some goals for them and begin training toward those goals. Every dog and owner are different so each will have unique needs and goals. One owner has lupus and her dog provides mobility support, helps her with her balance, provides steadiness when going up and down stairs and will pick up things she drops. She travels a lot and her dog goes with her every where.
A recently certified dog aids his owner who has MS. He also provides mobility support, provides steadiness when she gets up from a chair, and helps her up if she falls. He can also get her cane for her if she drops it.
We have several dogs who have been trained to work with their former military owners who have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. For some of these Marines, their dogs alert to surges in emotions and will block all forward movement until the Marine takes a deep breath, gets himself back under control and acknowledges the dog. Other Marines need something different; perhaps a dog that will put his head in the lap or push against the Marine’s chest to interrupt the panic attack or surge of anger.
We have set very high standards for the dogs and owners in our program. Not only do we want the dogs accepted into our program to be the best they can be to provide assistance for their owners, but also because there are so many dogs labeled ’service dogs’ who should not be working under that label. I have seen dogs from other programs out of control, being rude in public, lifting their leg inappropriately, growling at people, growling at other dogs and more.
If a dog is working in public with the Kindred Spirits patch on his vest, I want that dog to be the best he can be. I want people seeing him say, “Wow! That’s an awesome dog!” I want his owner to be confidant that his dog will be of help to him when that help is needed.
That is what a service dog should be.
I welcome your thoughts, questions and more comments on this subject.
Alas, these days I am finding that a service dog who behaves like a service dog is the exception to the rule. What happened? Bad behavior used to be the noteworthy exception. Now a well-trained service dog is the one we remark upon.
Typical, and I do mean TYPICAL, event below:
There’s a man in town with a golden retriever that wears a service dog vest.
Some months ago I was working young Cole on heeling on Main Street. Cole was at that time transitioning out of being aggressive and reactive towards all other dogs, and just being a rude little prick generally. He’d had maybe three previous lessons in heelwork. But also, genius, and very biddable.
As we were crossing Main street at a 4-way light I saw the man and his dog approaching from down the block, coming up on our left on the side of the street we were crossing towards. I was ready to correct Cole when he saw them; he noticed the dog, paused staring, I gave him a light leash pop, and he returned to heeling with full attention on me, smiling as he always does.
The golden saw Cole an instant later (already back working for me and paying him no attention) and exploded. Barking, lunging, bouncing, growling. The man was pulling on the leash and trying to calm his dog with all the usual counterproductive petting and pleading. They were still about 40 feet away.
Instead of turning left to walk back down Main Street, which had been my plan, we continued straight so that we wouldn’t approach them and ducked into a parking lot to do some patterns until they passed. The golden was still lunging and whipping his head around looking for Cole while they crossed the cross-street and continued up main.
This is not the first time I’ve witnessed this sort of thing by the same dog — just an illustration. Lots of people walk their well-trained pets on Main Street and have been targets. And yes, I was SO proud of my little semi-trained heathen that day.
Now, I’ve never met this man and have no idea what function his dog is supposed to perform for him.
Here’s what I do know.
The diner where I like to nosh is prohibited by law from allowing Cole to come inside and lie under the booth while I have my BLT. (It is the kind of place where they would definitely allow this sort of thing for a “regular” if it wasn’t prohibited.)
They are also prohibited by law from barring the golden retriever. (Unless the dog creates a major disruption with its behavior while inside the diner — and they are setting themselves up for bogus legal harassment and a PR nightmare if they do take this step.)
If I tie Cole to a parking meter and put him on a down-stay while I sit at the counter and have lunch (I can see out the front windows and door) he is at risk of being jumped if this man walks his dog past on the sidewalk.
Every dog owner in town is in the same boat.
I used to leave as many as three dogs on down-stays, unleashed, in front of the diner. It was wonderful training proofing. Can’t do that any more.
And I fight feeling vaguely guilty every time the sight of one of my dogs sets off this guy’s golden and the man has to struggle with his hysterical dog. I don’t feel that way when someone’s pet does the same thing, but the service dog vest and the presumption of an owner disability has irrational power over the mostly-atrophied guilt centers of my brain. (Dammit! I have the right to walk my dogs in town too!)
I have come to the sad conclusion that the ADA is badly flawed, and that states need to have the power to certify service dogs as suitable for public access, and to withhold that certification. I don’t care what disability-mitigating function the dog performs, it needs to be able to consistently behave like a civilized being in order for its owner to be able to impose on the rest of us and claim access rights.
Stories of well-behaved service dogs need to stop being the exception.
And frankly, I’d just as soon see access rights for dog owners tied to the dog’s proven good behavior and divorced from the owner’s disability. (I have some duck wings in the freezer that I’ll be stitching on to a pig soon so I’ll let you know how that works.)
Comment by H. Houlahan — June 30, 2010 @ 7:31 am
Heather: That is exactly why I have set such high standards for the service dogs in our program. A service dog SHOULD be held to higher standards!
Comment by Liz Palika — June 30, 2010 @ 8:27 am
Terrific article on “service dogs” that aren’t, and the owners who are to blame:
Service with a Snarl: In San Francisco, lizards, rodents, and vicious Chihuahuas have all been declared service animals.
Heather said: “And frankly, I’d just as soon see access rights for dog owners tied to the dog’s proven good behavior and divorced from the owner’s disability.”
Big giant amen.
Comment by Luisa — June 30, 2010 @ 8:29 am
Liz, I don’t provide service dog training (though I have considered pursuing additional education and doing so), but I am regularly approached by people with pets who have some idea that I can “certify” their dogs so they can take them on airplanes.
Not train the dog to an acceptable level, but rubber-stamp it as a “service dog.”
None has ever mentioned a disability.
Comment by H. Houlahan — June 30, 2010 @ 8:49 am
Luisa —
Good article.
Sounds to me as if SF should get out of the service-animal-tag-issuing business altogether.
It wouldn’t change the misuse of the ADA in SF, but it would get the city out of the enablement loop.
Comment by H. Houlahan — June 30, 2010 @ 8:52 am
I’ve been delaying on writing a service dog article but it is still on my list.
It was prompted by someone posing to be a “service dog trainer” who allows aggressive animals and poorly behaved critters into her “program.”
Those dogs have attacked others in public and I actually got a snap of one with a muzzle on in public.
Service dogs and therapy dogs are great options but only when they are truly serving that role and have tutelage from a savvy trainer or facility.
Comment by Ark Lady — June 30, 2010 @ 9:24 am
Heather: That’s why we begin with a prescription that actually says that the person needs one and why. Granted this isn’t perfect either but it’s a start.
Comment by Liz Palika — June 30, 2010 @ 9:54 am
There’s good and bad in anything…
there are service animals that are well-behaved, and excel in performing the needed tasks for persons with disabilities, and then there are “service animals” who are not so well trained, and risk doing more harm than good in representing what a true service animal should be.
The Americans with Disabilities Act has specific guidelines on what constitutes a service animal, which are outlined in Q&A form at the U.S. Dept. of Justice site: http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm
Comment by Marcy — June 30, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
Oh! And by the way…
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) will be celebrating its 20th Anniversary on July 26th!
The ADA has made it possible for persons with disabilities to live independently, and to be contributing, vital members in our society.
Comment by Marcy — June 30, 2010 @ 2:25 pm
Ah, here we go again. Sic the guvmint bureaucrats on ill-mannered dogs, and all will be well. Just like the guvmint fixed the homeless dog problem (animal control atrocities) and Pit Bull attacks problem (breed specific legislation). As a disabled person with an extremely well-mannered service dog, no thanks.
I have yet to meet a disabled person with a service dog who supports certification of service dogs. We don’t need the hassle or expense. Disabilities are—d’oh!—disabling—and we have enough problems already. Not to mention that fact that most of the certifiers are likely to be ninnies. If it’s such a great idea, why aren’t disabled people with service dogs clamoring for it?
The only people who will benefit from certification are dog trainers. What a goldmine! And what a racket!
And, no, kicking out a rude service dog will not cause a PR nightmare or major bogus legal harassment. The ADA guidelines flatly state that disruptive service dogs can be excluded. Period. Check out the link that Marcy has helpfully provided. Lawyers don’t take loser cases on a contingency basis, so anyone who wants to sue will have to pay big bucks, only to have the whole thing tossed out on summary judgment. And they can be countersued for filing a frivolous, unfounded lawsuit.
We’ve gone round and round on this before, and I always wind up feeling like an African American being told by whites that she just doesn’t know what’s best for her, and she should let the white folks tell her how to run her life.
I cannot figure out why some non-disabled people have such a bug up their behinds on this issue. The occasional rude service dog or fake service dog do not strike me as a significant social issue. I am routinely harassed because of my well-behaved service dog. Other disabled people have to deal with this kind of harassment as well. Why aren’t non-disabled people frothing at the mouth about this problem instead?
Perhaps it’s misguided jealousy over the fact that service dogs are allowed in places where their dogs are not. Somehow the fact there is a terrible price for this so-called “privilege“—a disability—doesn’t seem to register.
Yes, obviously any dog in public should be well-mannered. Any child in public should be well-mannered too. Should the guvmint require that children be certified before they’re allowed out in public? Bratty kids cause far more disruptions in public than dogs do.
Readers who want details of the arguments might enjoy reading the earlier Petconnection blogs and comments on this issue.
Comment by SusanS — June 30, 2010 @ 6:12 pm
“The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) will be celebrating its 20th Anniversary on July 26th!”
Thanks for the reminder, Marcy! That nasty ole “badly flawed” ADA has completely changed the lives of disabled people. It’s still a struggle, but at least we can fight discrimination now. Before the ADA, employers could fire us or refuse to hire us solely because we’re disabled, and it was legal to do so. Public places could deny entry to our service dogs no matter how well behaved they were, and that, too, was legal. The ADA has changed all of that.
See the difference in perspective? That’s why disabled people need to make their own decisions about what’s best for them instead of having non-disabled people do it for them.
Comment by SusanS — June 30, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
Yes, SusanS…even after 20 years it’s still a struggle, as some choose not to follow the ADA, even though it is law. And then when challenged…they act as though it’s a crime that they should be expected to do so.
Many have fought hard and long to see the ADA come to existence…and they still fight today to maintain it.
The ADA is not about special privileges, it’s about equal access for everyone.
Comment by Marcy — July 1, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
I know you’re not going to like this point of view, but allowing people to pick and “train” their own service animals is jeopardizing the future of these animals to help people who need them, and as such the rights many fought for under the ADA.
These problems with regard to dangerous, out-of-control service animals need to be addressed.
There needs to be some accountability and standards, in the same way that my nebulizer needs to perform certain functions and be reliable — because my life may depend on that device. While no service animal is a machine, they need to be held to higher standards because they ARE a higher standard than a “pet,” which they are not.
A service animal that is not well-trained, well-mannered and under control is simply not legitimate, even if the need FOR a service animal is legitimate.
The need for service animals and access for people who use them should not be debatable, in my opinion. The quality of the service animals, in terms of temperament, training and behavior in public, is fully debatable, and the problems need to be legally addressed.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 1, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
“The quality of the service animals, in terms of temperament, training and behavior in public, is fully debatable, and the problems need to be legally addressed.”
It has been legally addressed, by the ADA. For the zillionth time, ill-behaved service dogs can be given the boot from any public facility.
“There needs to be some accountability”
There is. Disabled people are completely accountable and liable for the actions of their service dogs. They can be sued if their dogs injure someone or cause damage. If they know or should have known the dog would injure someone, criminal charges can be brought against them.
“allowing people to pick and “train” their own service animals is jeopardizing the future of these animals to help people who need them, and as such the rights many fought for under the ADA.”
This is a recurrent and tedious threat: Nah, nah, nah, better do what we tell you or we’ll take away your precious ADA. I don’t think the ADA will be repealed if certification isn’t required for service dogs. In fact, the ADA was greatly strengthened a year or so ago—while all these legions of rude service dogs were allegedly stalking the streets.
Some of the best service dogs I’ve seen were picked and trained by their disabled owners. Some of us really can do stuff like that, amazing as it may sound.
I’ve also heard of crooked organizations that turn out unfit service dogs. Do you really think these will go away if certification is required? Dogs can be trained very narrowly to go through the certification hoops, doped up if necessary when tested, and be unfit to be a full-time working dog in public.
“A service animal that is not well-trained, well-mannered and under control is simply not legitimate, even if the need FOR a service animal is legitimate.”
Of course it isn’t, nor is it considered legitimate under the ADA. We have all the legal tools we need to deal effectively with rude service dogs.
“These problems with regard to dangerous, out-of-control service animals need to be addressed.”
Dangerous? Can you give me one verified incident in which a service dog actually seriously injured someone?
Service dog certification laws belong in the same junk law category as breed bans and mandatory spay/neuter laws. They aren’t needed and they do a great deal of harm. If store owners simply stand up and give rude dogs the boot, the owners of these dogs will have to fix the problem behavior or get a dog that can do the work properly. That’s a solution that penalizes the people who should be penalized without punishing the people with well-mannered service dogs.
Comment by SusanS — July 1, 2010 @ 6:56 pm
That’s why disabled people need to make their own decisions about what’s best for them instead of having non-disabled people do it for them.
You are not making decisions about “what is best for you.” You are acting on choices that affect everyone. Claiming that no one who is not a disabled service-dog owner has a right to an opinion is bullshit. I have the right to be safe and unmolested in public, and if someone else’s uncontrolled dog interferes with that right, I am not going to give him a pass because it’s a “service dog” that has been imposed in places where other dogs, no matter how well-trained and mannerly, are banned.
Gina’s highly-regulated nebulizer is not going to bite a bus driver. It’s not going to drag her down the sidewalk and attack my dog. And I don’t know of anyone other than Olympic and professional athletes who lie about needing asthma meds in order to be allowed to carry them around all the time.
Standards, licensing, and certification are generally introduced by, lobbied for by, and overall the creatures of the industry, profession, or vocation that is being standardized, certified, licensed. It isn’t the big bad gubbmint coming in to take away the freedom of hairdressers, dentists, or, say, SAR dog handlers.
In my experience in SAR, those who scream foul about mandatory certification and other external validations (1) claim that “no one” wants or needs such failsafes; (2) have all sorts of bogus claims about how the “market” will sort out the bad teams; (3) claim that all examiners are biased, and (4) suck at their jobs and fail the most elementary evaluations.
Why all the fuss about a simple evaluation for public access? Where does the conspiracy come in?
I had to take a test to get my driver’s license. It isn’t up to other drivers and pedestrians to “enforce” the norms of the road on everyone who just feels like getting behind the wheel one day. There’s a gatekeeper because what I do with a two-ton vehicle affects everyone else, and “market” solutions don’t work — just as they clearly do not work to deter people from abusing the ADA with both bogus “service animals” owned by the non-disabled and with badly trained pets that do not mitigate the owner’s disability.
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 1, 2010 @ 10:06 pm
H. Houlahan, if the existing laws were enforced, we wouldn’t have such huge problems. In my state, you can go to jail and/or be fined up to $2000 for pretending your pet is a service animal. However, to my knowledge, this is rarely enforced.
I picked my dog, becuase the closest place able to train service dog works with owner trainer and I knew what I wanted in a dog. I bought a dog from a breeder that repeatedly had puppies grow up to be guides and other kinds of service dogs, along with my boy having immediate relatives doing service work. So, yes, I can see what I huge problem I pose. See, I’m often accused of being fake, becuase Figaro, he’s with me due to mental illnesses and developmental disabilities that aren’t readily visible.
One of the main issues is educating people, becuase to be honest, most of the general public does not understand the difference between emotional support animals, therapy dogs, and service dogs. Many fakers truly think they are doing all they need to do, but I for one would be glad to see them kicked out, becuase they put my health in danger. I just don’t think a registration system is going to accomplish that without further marginalizing people with disabilities.
So, once I see some actual enforcement of the existing laws, I may change my mind, but it isn’t happening right now. I would love seeing people go to jail and get slapped with big fines, becuase their choices are dangerous.
Comment by thetroubleis — July 1, 2010 @ 11:41 pm
Gina, I just don’t agree that allowing OT is bad. I know way too many GOOD OTs, and especially for certain types of disability, there just aren’t programs available. (For example, the vast majority of programs doing psychiatric service dogs are doing exclusively SDs for vets with PTSD. The autism dog programs are almost exclusively doing tether/’triad’ dogs (another dangerous thing!) as babysitters for small children. (I do know an autistic adult who just got approved with GDB, but her current dog’s (an FCR, btw!) primary task is guidework, and this isn’t the case in anywhere near all of autism assistance dogs). I still like my common sense registration scheme idea (see the last big service dog kerfluffle), but even that’s problematic- unless it’s as simple a registration as California’s (which is admittedly problematic), it’s got a huge, huge, huge amount of potential for abuse by people with prejudice about certain types of disability, or dog breeds, etc.
Just like with breeder regulation, existing regulation and data collection needs to be enforced (and to happen) before we can really say what law needs to be changed or not changed.
I don’t think that opinions need to be restricted to disabled individuals who use SDs (a TINY fraction of the population, after all, especially for the amount of screeching you hear about fakes). That’s like saying no one who doesn’t drive should get to have an opinion on traffic laws- or, to throw in a hot button issue, no one male should get to have an opinion about abortion. :P But I *would* like to see some real statistics about documentable bad behavior- and I’d like to see businesses exercising their right to kick out badly behaved dogs.
A program like Liz’s Kindred Spirits is a GREAT resource, especially since they work with a wide variety of disabilities, including psychiatric ones. But I’m also not sure if you realize how RARE legitimate programs that work with owner trainers are. I like their screening technique of having a doctor write ‘scrip for the individual for the SD- but even that is open to a fair amount of abuse- see the last big SD discussion thread again for mention of the junior handler who was flying with her SD- I know a significant number of agility people who have gotten a scrip for ‘anxiety’ so that they can fly with their dog as an ESA to trials, and one handler who is or was specialing a dog that way- he may have retired by now.)
Faking needs to stop. But you can’t legislate responsibility, and making it harder for legitimate individuals won’t make the fakers any more responsible. Enforcement will make them more careful, though, and frankly, I’d rather see some fakers with really well behaved dogs get through than disabled folks having to jump through MORE hoops.
Comment by Cait — July 2, 2010 @ 7:01 am
Cait and thetroubleis, thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Cait and Houlie, of course everyone’s entitled to an opinion. Nowhere have I suggested otherwise. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion. What I object to is cramming something disabled people do not want down their throats, especially on the basis of—what? A few rude service dogs?
Houlie, instead of attacking those of us with well-mannered service dogs, why don’t you offer your services as a trainer—free—to the guy with the rude service dog? That’s a real solution, and it’s what I would do instead of going after people whose dogs aren’t causing a problem.
Despite all the wailing about being entitled to be safe from attack by service dogs, no one has produced a single instance in which a service dog has attacked someone. The worst sin is rudeness.
Automobile accidents, in sharp contrast, are common, crippling, and deadly. This is why drivers’ licenses are reasonable.
It is not reasonable to impose restrictions on all service dogs because they might hurt someone, just as it is not reasonable to impose restrictions on all Pits because they might hurt someone. Pit restrictions at least have the justification that horrible and fatal Pit attacks have occurred, although I’m still opposed to them.
Houlie and Gina, why do you oppose laws that restrict all Pits but promote laws that restrict all service dogs? You know how many morons and outright criminals own Pits and the ghastly consequences of this. Yet you are opposed to laws that require all Pits to be muzzled when in public and confined behind 6-foot high privacy fences, and require owners to have a million bucks worth of insurance. I agree with you.
You are also opposed to mandatory spay/neuter laws, despite that fact that many dog owners are idiots who breed dogs that should not be bred. I agree with you there also.
So why promote new legal restrictions on service dogs and their owners because of a few rude service dogs and fakes?
And, dang it, I wish I could see some of these rude service dogs for myself. I don’t doubt that this sometimes happens, but I’ve seen only one borderline instance involving a Golden Retriever guide dog (certified by a highly reputable organization) who lunged happily at my service dog. He self-corrected himself with his chain choke collar, the owner popped him hard with a second correction, and it was over. The dog was not dangerous, just thrilled to see another dog. Hardly grounds for repealing the ADA or making me certify my well-mannered service dog.
This discussion reminds me so much of the way many white folks used to admonish African Americans to stop that nonsense with the Civil Rights movement. “It’s for your own good to stop it,” they said. “You’ll only hurt yourselves if you continue. There will be a terrible white backlash. So just be patient and wait for change to come. We know what’s best for you. You don’t.” And, of course, the Civil Rights folks were right. They, and not white folks, knew what was best for them. More to the point, they had every right to make their own decisions about their lives and the risks they were willing to take.
You would think the fact that disabled people with service dogs are opposed to certification would give non-disabled people pause, wouldn’t you? But it doesn’t seem to.
Non-disabled people are indeed entitled to their opinions, but disabled people are entitled to call them on it. I think there is a substantial underlay of prejudice here (likely subconscious), for multiple reasons:
1. No real data showing a vicious service dog menace have been produced, yet this alleged menace is frequently brought up.
2. Disabled people are threatened with repeal of the ADA if they refuse to go along with the non-disabled person’s agenda for them.
3. The position taken is completely inconsistent with the sensible positions taken on breed-specific laws and mandatory spay/neuter laws.
4. The opposition of disabled people to the restrictions that non-disabled people want to impose on them is disregarded.
Comment by SusanS — July 2, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
Just a quick comment, because I’m using my kindle. I have seen dog recactive “service dogs”and I do my best toeducate bussinesses that distruptive dogs can be kicked out. A lot of bussiness owners didn’t know that, which I think is part of the issue. I and just about every handler I know would be mortified tohave our dog misbehave in public. I wish more people would kick out fakers, even if that means calling the cops. However, I also wish I didn’t get hassled when I’m just trying to shop or do whatever else Ido while living my life. I’m sorry about any typos. or odd formating, I’m not used totyping posts on this thing.
Comment by thetroubleis — July 2, 2010 @ 2:36 pm
SusanS, elsewhere on the web, in another forum, I pretty regularly read the opinions, ideas, and complaints of service dog handlers. To hear them tell it, they fairly regularly encounter problems with ill-trained service dogs or fakers handled by other people. The general presumption is that all these ill-behaved service dogs are of course “fakers,” although no real evidence of this is offered other than the fact that the dog was badly behaved.
I’ve also noticed that there seems to be a presumption that a small dog, any small dog, no matter how well-behaved, if it is in a place where pets are not allowed, is an example of fakery. Guilty until proven innocent, seems to be the rule with small dogs, especially if it’s very small and being carried in a crowded store. This despite the fact that there are many medical-alert and hearing-assistance tasks easily performed by small dogs, and someone who doesn’t need a large dog to meet their needs, might prefer a small dog precisely because of its greater “portability.”
Further, quite a few of these service dog handlers insist that the presence of pet dogs, even very well-behaved pet dogs, in places where pets are not expected, not even banned, just not expected, is inexcusably inconsiderate to service dog handlers because their dogs might react badly.
See, pet dogs should be banned in public in general, both because their level of training is generally much lower than that of service dogs, AND because even a well-behaved pet dog might cause one of those perfectly-trained service dogs to be distracted and behave badly.
And if you point out the contradiction in that, you’re just demonstrating that you have no respect for the needs of service dog handlers.
If service dog handlers are encountering all these dogs who are claimed to be service dogs and who don’t behave, that’s a problem, even if you don’t want to acknowledge it.
And if a well-trained service dog can be expected to react badly to the presence of a well-trained, well-behaved pet dog in places where pet dogs are allowed to be—-umm. What was that about a “well-trained service dog.” ? What exactly is that phrase supposed to mean?
Comment by Lis — July 2, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
Good point, Lis, about how unreasonable it is to assume that a small, carried dog is a fake service dog.
“If service dog handlers are encountering all these dogs who are claimed to be service dogs and who don’t behave, that’s a problem, even if you don’t want to acknowledge it.”
Lis, I don’t dispute that it may be a problem somewhere. I just haven’t seen it. Is it perhaps a California or NY thing?
What I do dispute is the so-called “solution” of having non-disabled people cram certification down the throats of service dog owners.
Moreover, harassment of disabled people with well-behaved service dogs is a much greater problem than rude service dogs. It is, for example, impossible for me to get a taxi by flagging one down in traffic. The driver takes one look at my service dog (who is clearly identified as such) and zooms off. This is illegal, of course, but fat chance of doing anything about it. It’s irritating that non-disabled people who shriek with indignation about a rude service dog seem to have nothing to say about this far greater problem.
I have never argued that well-behaved pet dogs should not be allowed in public places. Of course they should.
“quite a few of these service dog handlers insist that the presence of pet dogs, even very well-behaved pet dogs, in places where pets are not expected, not even banned, just not expected, is inexcusably inconsiderate to service dog handlers because their dogs might react badly.”
Another bit of nonsense you’ll never hear from me. Service dogs have to be proofed against the presence of other dogs. The world is not obligated to make itself nonreactive to service dogs. Service dog owners are obligated to make their dogs nonreactive to the world’s provocations. This is a responsibility that I take very seriously. It took me several years and cost me a fortune to find the superdog I needed as a service dog. I refused to settle for anything less.
Comment by SusanS — July 2, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
“You would think the fact that disabled people with service dogs are opposed to certification would give non-disabled people pause, wouldn’t you? But it doesn’t seem to.”
For the record I am a disabled person with a service dog and I am FOR certification. I don’t care if your dog is program trained or owner trained (and I’ve seen good and bad examples of both.)
Comment by Sue M — July 3, 2010 @ 3:48 am
“non-disabled people who shriek with indignation … another bit of nonsense … cram certification down the throats … “
Comment by SusanS — July 2, 2010
Your constant hyperbole is not helping to make your point. And by the way, aren’t you being a bit rude to ASSUME all the people who are discussing this here — including me — are not dealing with disabilities ourselves? (None of whom, by the way, are shrieking besides you.)
—-
Service dogs have to be proofed against the presence of other dogs. The world is not obligated to make itself nonreactive to service dogs. Service dog owners are obligated to make their dogs nonreactive to the world’s provocations.
Comment by SusanS — July 2, 2010
And this is supposed to happen … how? By magic fairy dust?
For the record, I don’t think “fake” service dogs are a huge problem, in terms of numbers, anyway. I actually have know a couple of people who have done this, and while I don’t think they should have, their dogs were considerably better behaved than most pets dogs. They did not damage the future of service dogs, since they behaved as well as any service dog should. (Again, no, I don’t approve of faking, even if your dog IS a model of good behavior.)
The problem of poorly trained and/or unreliable service dogs is a bigger one that the problem of “fakes.” The inability of these dogs to provide the service for which they are intended to people who genuinely benefit from their use is truly a reason for concern, whether you think I’m untitled to that concern or not.
Now, you may go shriek in indignation elsewhere, because unless you are willing to advance this discussion, you’ve made all the points you’re going to here.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 3, 2010 @ 6:04 am
Gina, honestly, I think the issues of fakes is far, far bigger. The scam organizations out their certainly aren’t helping. I don’t know if “Take your dog any where” is still up and running, but we had to deal with rash of people claiming pets are service dogs becuase of this and that’s not counting the places that prey on the parents of children with Autism.
I truly believe most people with ESAs they bring into public mean well, but this isn’t true of people with show dogs or pet dog vesting them to take them into stores and on planes. However, both groups are problems.
I will continue to believe the best solution is the to enforce the actual laws that are in place and see where to go from there.
And for the record, I don’t have problem with well behaved pet dogs in public and Fig and I are headed down to the park to work on more proofing against dogs who want to play. Hell, if someone can get something like a CGC or similar behavior out of their dog, I don’t even have a huge problem with them in what are now considered non pet stores.
Comment by thetroubleis — July 3, 2010 @ 11:16 am
I use a service dog named ANDOR he is a Komondor, he is the ultimate worker, he has been pro. trained, i have been the victim of harassment ,threats of harm to myself and ANDOR , because we are proceeding with a lawsuit in federal court here in wisconsin i was harrassed over 20 times by the oshkosh area school districts teachers at one school ,detained against my will had the police called on me for walking down the sidewalk with my service dog. my service animal has never showed aggression or lunged at anyone,he is well behaved i still deal with drama daily, people do not like the idea of service dogs having rights, i agree with most people that a dog should have pro. training but a test is a hard one to sell me on, if someone posed a threat to me i would hope my ANDOR would be able to protect me from them. i have the advantage in my case because i have a police report, also letters from the schools principal, i have the law on my side, & i get a check from the u.s. dept. of treasury for s.s.i. disability
Comment by christopher nigl — July 15, 2010 @ 11:12 pm