Service dogs - should certification be required?
- Thread starter Danefied
- Start date
So the fact that this happened in another country somehow makes the child any less injured?
It is my OPINION - which I am entitled to, that a system that is reactive is far less effective than one that is proactive. The way it is currently set up, we have no recourse UNTIL the dog starts misbehaving. At which point you throw the book at the SD team? That's a completely reactive system with no attempt at prevention. Not to mention, there's not a lot of room for humans or dogs to have a bad day is there?
I don't agree with the "innocent until proven guilty" argument. For one, its not a crime to need a service dog
Under this current system, if my beautifully trained, sound temperament, legal service dog has a bad day and grumbles at an obnoxious kid, I get kicked out of the establishment (which most handlers would leave anyway if the dog is having a bad day), but on top of that I can now be prosecuted for having a "fake" service dog? (Please don't tell me that a dog who growls is not a service dog under ADA guidelines as even the most tolerant dog can have his moments.)
So now, because my dog growled at a kid, and someone happened to hear it, I become a criminal? Sorry but that's not right even if the dog was improperly trained. Do people who improperly use wheelchairs automatically become criminals?
Or what if I don't know my female SD has a UTI or develops spay incontinence and leaks urine, and the first time it happens, it happens while working.
I now have a "fake" service dog and I can be fined? That's that reactive system at work again.
It is my OPINION that being asked if I am disabled and what my dog does for me invades my privacy. I would NOT want to have to field questions every time I wanted to enter a building. I would prefer to see a system that doesn't require that of people with disabilities.
I suggested universal certification as one way to mitigate this invasion of privacy. I'm sure there are other ways, but we're so busy yelling NO CERTIFICATION at me that no one is looking for other solutions or ways to make things BETTER. I don't know, I guess if you're okay having to answer personal questions just because you have a service dog then okay, but *I* would not be okay with having to answer personal questions when the guy next to me doesn't.
IOW, the way the system is set up now still discriminates against people with disabilities.
I brought up how other countries handle this because IME it seems like there is less fraud and more respect for service animals overseas. Yes, I speak from experience.
I'm not sure how this turned in to a political discussion or an America is a better country than others, but I'm not interested in that, nor am I interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, or being accused of hating people with disabilities, not believing they can think for themselves, being a Nazi or supporting BSL. So with that, I bow out of the thread I started.
I have had my original question somewhat answered, thanks to those who participated.
It is my OPINION - which I am entitled to, that a system that is reactive is far less effective than one that is proactive. The way it is currently set up, we have no recourse UNTIL the dog starts misbehaving. At which point you throw the book at the SD team? That's a completely reactive system with no attempt at prevention. Not to mention, there's not a lot of room for humans or dogs to have a bad day is there?
I don't agree with the "innocent until proven guilty" argument. For one, its not a crime to need a service dog
Under this current system, if my beautifully trained, sound temperament, legal service dog has a bad day and grumbles at an obnoxious kid, I get kicked out of the establishment (which most handlers would leave anyway if the dog is having a bad day), but on top of that I can now be prosecuted for having a "fake" service dog? (Please don't tell me that a dog who growls is not a service dog under ADA guidelines as even the most tolerant dog can have his moments.)
So now, because my dog growled at a kid, and someone happened to hear it, I become a criminal? Sorry but that's not right even if the dog was improperly trained. Do people who improperly use wheelchairs automatically become criminals?
Or what if I don't know my female SD has a UTI or develops spay incontinence and leaks urine, and the first time it happens, it happens while working.
I now have a "fake" service dog and I can be fined? That's that reactive system at work again.
It is my OPINION that being asked if I am disabled and what my dog does for me invades my privacy. I would NOT want to have to field questions every time I wanted to enter a building. I would prefer to see a system that doesn't require that of people with disabilities.
I suggested universal certification as one way to mitigate this invasion of privacy. I'm sure there are other ways, but we're so busy yelling NO CERTIFICATION at me that no one is looking for other solutions or ways to make things BETTER. I don't know, I guess if you're okay having to answer personal questions just because you have a service dog then okay, but *I* would not be okay with having to answer personal questions when the guy next to me doesn't.
IOW, the way the system is set up now still discriminates against people with disabilities.
I brought up how other countries handle this because IME it seems like there is less fraud and more respect for service animals overseas. Yes, I speak from experience.
I'm not sure how this turned in to a political discussion or an America is a better country than others, but I'm not interested in that, nor am I interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, or being accused of hating people with disabilities, not believing they can think for themselves, being a Nazi or supporting BSL. So with that, I bow out of the thread I started.
I have had my original question somewhat answered, thanks to those who participated.
Last edited:
No, it just doesnt apply to this debate because the service dog laws, and management, prevention, etc isn't the same in both countries.
That is the basis of our entire legal system. You can't stop someone from burning down a house until they show intent to do so, or actually do so. You can't pull someone over until they actually speed. You can't kick someone out of a store unless they are actually distrupting your store. You can't be stopped for stealing unless you actually steal or attempt to steal.
Our legal system is, and will always be, reactive. The way to reduce all things that I mentioned is education. This has been proven time and time again. There's a direct correlation between education and crime rate everywhere in the world.
You're distorting that. It's not a crime to need one, it's a crime to impersonate one. You're innocent of the crime of impersonating a SD owner until you are found guilty of it.
You might be asked to be removed, yes. But no, you're not going to get prosecuted if your dog growls one time. That's an exaggeration.
Again, you are exaggerating our responses. No, your scenario would never happen here in the USA unless it happens repeatedly over a short period of time.
Again, that would not happen.
Then you are not in support of certification and being asked the two questions both. So you are in support of abolishing the provision that allows businesses to ask questions. Excellent! I'm in complete support of this.
But if you're stating this opinion in a manner that you want to show a certification instead.. well, that's a problem. The majority of SD owners do not want certification. So either you're in support of denying what the majority of SD owners want, or you accept that this is something that will never and should never happen and move on.
I'm honestly at a loss here. We've provided you MANY alternate solutions that do not require you to be asked any questions. You would not be okay with answering personal questions when the guy next to you doesn't, but you would be okay constantly getting harassed all the time for certification when the guy next to you doesn't? It sounds to me like you're actually in support of enforcing current laws on Service Dogs through education and ending the law that allows people to ask any questions or require any certification. In that case, congrats! That's what the majority want!
That's a loaded statement. Without any numbers and statistics to back that up, I can't take your word for that.
That is the basis of our entire legal system. You can't stop someone from burning down a house until they show intent to do so, or actually do so. You can't pull someone over until they actually speed. You can't kick someone out of a store unless they are actually distrupting your store. You can't be stopped for stealing unless you actually steal or attempt to steal.
Our legal system is, and will always be, reactive. The way to reduce all things that I mentioned is education. This has been proven time and time again. There's a direct correlation between education and crime rate everywhere in the world.
I don't agree with the "innocent until proven guilty" argument. For one, its not a crime to need a service dog
You might be asked to be removed, yes. But no, you're not going to get prosecuted if your dog growls one time. That's an exaggeration.
Again, you are exaggerating our responses. No, your scenario would never happen here in the USA unless it happens repeatedly over a short period of time.
Again, that would not happen.
Then you are not in support of certification and being asked the two questions both. So you are in support of abolishing the provision that allows businesses to ask questions. Excellent! I'm in complete support of this.
But if you're stating this opinion in a manner that you want to show a certification instead.. well, that's a problem. The majority of SD owners do not want certification. So either you're in support of denying what the majority of SD owners want, or you accept that this is something that will never and should never happen and move on.
I'm honestly at a loss here. We've provided you MANY alternate solutions that do not require you to be asked any questions. You would not be okay with answering personal questions when the guy next to you doesn't, but you would be okay constantly getting harassed all the time for certification when the guy next to you doesn't? It sounds to me like you're actually in support of enforcing current laws on Service Dogs through education and ending the law that allows people to ask any questions or require any certification. In that case, congrats! That's what the majority want!
That's a loaded statement. Without any numbers and statistics to back that up, I can't take your word for that.
This Luigi?
https://meetluigi.wordpress.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAkOowfQ0IQ
Why is he fake?
https://meetluigi.wordpress.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAkOowfQ0IQ
Why is he fake?
Granted, I didn't read all 19 pages.
What are access laws for SDiT? (just curious)
My feeling is that any test would have to test the SDs basic manners in public, and maybe your basic command (sit, down, drop it, heal, whatever). I think if we try to test a SDs ability to carry out its task we might run into gray areas like is this a task (although it's usually cut and dry for, um, long-time SD owners), is this task helpful, can the dog reliably perform this task, etc. I mean with the last part, you can't test a dogs response when its handler is in "crisis" without putting the handler in crisis. Does that make sense? Like how do you know a dog will help its handler when they have a seizure or a panic attack unless the owner just happens to have a seizure or panic attack during the test..
Not to mention, what tasks your SD performs is individual to your disability. So, the test can't require a dog be able to pick objects off the floor, open doors, or alert its owner to allergens unless the owner requires that because of their disability.
Is the test pass/fail? Does it cost money? Granted, while I know many will pay I don't think there should be the fee. It's not... fair. But then it's like, who will administer this test for free? How can we accurately make sure that this test is available to everyone? Especially if your disability limits your ability to drive or to be out and about, it would be a major pain to live at the tip of NH and have to get down to Boston. Not impossible, but the inconvenience alone... eh...
You guys make me think, I don't know, it's a toss up really. I think having a test would be beneficial, but I'd rather no test at all than one that is biased, hard to come by, and expensive.
What are access laws for SDiT? (just curious)
My feeling is that any test would have to test the SDs basic manners in public, and maybe your basic command (sit, down, drop it, heal, whatever). I think if we try to test a SDs ability to carry out its task we might run into gray areas like is this a task (although it's usually cut and dry for, um, long-time SD owners), is this task helpful, can the dog reliably perform this task, etc. I mean with the last part, you can't test a dogs response when its handler is in "crisis" without putting the handler in crisis. Does that make sense? Like how do you know a dog will help its handler when they have a seizure or a panic attack unless the owner just happens to have a seizure or panic attack during the test..
Not to mention, what tasks your SD performs is individual to your disability. So, the test can't require a dog be able to pick objects off the floor, open doors, or alert its owner to allergens unless the owner requires that because of their disability.
Is the test pass/fail? Does it cost money? Granted, while I know many will pay I don't think there should be the fee. It's not... fair. But then it's like, who will administer this test for free? How can we accurately make sure that this test is available to everyone? Especially if your disability limits your ability to drive or to be out and about, it would be a major pain to live at the tip of NH and have to get down to Boston. Not impossible, but the inconvenience alone... eh...
You guys make me think,
I don't know, it's a toss up really. I think having a test would be beneficial, but I'd rather no test at all than one that is biased, hard to come by, and expensive.I know I said I was done, but this tidbit through out the thread has been bugging me.
How is it that you get to speak for the "majority" of SD owners? Is that an elected position or did you nominate yourself?
You keep asking ME for facts to support my OPINIONS, well quit giving YOUR opinion as fact. Either cough up some real statistics that state how the "majority" of SD owners feel or stop speaking for the majority as if you know what they want. You don't.
And please re-read what Saeleofu wrote. Without your blinders on.
How is it that you get to speak for the "majority" of SD owners? Is that an elected position or did you nominate yourself?
You keep asking ME for facts to support my OPINIONS, well quit giving YOUR opinion as fact. Either cough up some real statistics that state how the "majority" of SD owners feel or stop speaking for the majority as if you know what they want. You don't.
And please re-read what Saeleofu wrote. Without your blinders on.
The federal ADA law doesn't mention SDiTs. They are covered under state laws, but most state laws also don't allow public access to SDiTs.
TX and a few other states do allow public access for SDiTs, but only for trainers of ADI accredited training organizations. There are only a couple of states that allow public access for owner-trainers who are not professional trainers.
As Sael has mentioned, most people don't really NEED public access to train their SD. There are a growing number of businesses that allow pet dogs, so you can train your SD there. Even at my organization, when we're doing our first outings, we only go places where pet dogs are allowed; we don't do "real" public outings until the dog is quite advanced in training.
TX and a few other states do allow public access for SDiTs, but only for trainers of ADI accredited training organizations. There are only a couple of states that allow public access for owner-trainers who are not professional trainers.
As Sael has mentioned, most people don't really NEED public access to train their SD. There are a growing number of businesses that allow pet dogs, so you can train your SD there. Even at my organization, when we're doing our first outings, we only go places where pet dogs are allowed; we don't do "real" public outings until the dog is quite advanced in training.
I've talked to hundreds of SD handlers in the past 5 years - my organization's clients, other organizations' clients, people on forums, etc. - and a very small handfull of all of them support certification. Those who do support it are almost all owner-trainers, as they do have a harder time with public access; and owner-trainers are a very small percentage of all the SD handlers in this country.
I don't have to speak for the majority of dog owners. Do you know how laws get created? By majority rule. The majority of SD owners were in support of current ADA laws, which is how it got to where it is. Nearly every major SD organization is not in support of certification for a reason. Go check that for yourself. Even ADI, who created the PAT, doesn't feel that it's mandatory, they just encourage people to do the test for a real basis of their dog's training. They feel it's TOTALLY optional.
That is how I know what the majority want. I don't speak for the majority, the majority spoke for themselves.
Sael is perfectly capable of defending her opinion that you don't need to hide behind her and say that the reason I don't agree with you is because of blinders.
Certification has been attempted to be made into law multiple times by a small group of people. EVERY TIME it got rejected because the majority rejected certification. Those people spoke for themselves.
That is how I know what the majority want. I don't speak for the majority, the majority spoke for themselves.
Sael is perfectly capable of defending her opinion that you don't need to hide behind her and say that the reason I don't agree with you is because of blinders.
Certification has been attempted to be made into law multiple times by a small group of people. EVERY TIME it got rejected because the majority rejected certification. Those people spoke for themselves.
ANd you call us harsh? Just because our opinion on this does not match yours does not mean that we have blinders on. We have our eyes wide open hence why we know that certifacation won;t do anything. Certifacation is like a placebo. It makes the person feel like they are doing better to fix and issue when in fact it is not going to do anything at all and it is all in the persons mind.
^^^^^This, a huge this. I've always thought it and always will. As for whether I like dog hair in my dinner or shedding on my purchase or allergies; guess what, service dogs provide all of the above; they are not immune; so why discriminate.
^^^^^and this; huge THIS; living in a BSL province I shudder to think of the ramifications of REQUIRING licensing!
Right... because saying that someone has blinders on is waaaayyy worse than likening them to a Nazi...
Honesty? RBark and Lizzie and others have brought up good points, and definitely given me pause about how certification would work (thanks Saeleofu), if certification would work (thanks lizzybeth). But I tend to think about things for myself and not just accept something because someone says so. Therefore I ask more questions pose different scenarios. That's the way I figure things out in my mind. Someone hitting me over the head for trying to think something through isn't going to endear me much to their argument - just sayin'
Fortunately, I'm mature enough to walk away (for realz this time) think about what was said and form my own educated opinion. That BTW, STILL may not coincide with yours
Honesty? RBark and Lizzie and others have brought up good points, and definitely given me pause about how certification would work (thanks Saeleofu), if certification would work (thanks lizzybeth). But I tend to think about things for myself and not just accept something because someone says so. Therefore I ask more questions pose different scenarios. That's the way I figure things out in my mind. Someone hitting me over the head for trying to think something through isn't going to endear me much to their argument - just sayin'
Fortunately, I'm mature enough to walk away (for realz this time
) think about what was said and form my own educated opinion. That BTW, STILL may not coincide with yours