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 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.

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.)

“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.

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?

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.

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.

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.