Service dogs

[Gempress]

This issue has come up in a few recent threads, so I thought I'd start a seperate one.

There has been a trend lately of people training their own pets as "service dogs". As of yet there is no formal certification process for service dogs, so basically any dog wearing a vest is a service dog.

I'm very bothered by this trend. There are probably people in this world who label their dogs as "service dogs" just so they can take their pup with them everywhere. And by law, store proprietiers cannot even ask what the person's disability is. So there's no way to find out if a dog is a true service dog.

I think that it hurts the legitimacy of the entire service dog concept. Service dogs should be exceptional examples of canine companions: extensively trained, rock-steady temperament, etc. That's one of the reasons why they're allowed everywhere. And with the advent of any Fifi or Fido being able to "serve", I think it's only a matter of time before there are some negative incidents that tarnish the service dog reputation.

Any thoughts?

 

[jupiter11600]

Well, Mine is self trained... But I do not mind answering what I use him for. If the dog is obviously out of control I think maybe there is more cause for worry. Maybe some sort of thing should be put in to get more info if the dog is obviously mis-behaving, but owner trained is the only way I can get my dog trained.

 

[ToscasMom]

This reminds me of all those people who have handicapped parking tickets and don't need them. I saw two young seniors hop out of their car recently, taking the only remaining parking slot and looking like they could beat me at tennis. I was furious. I've seen people who could barely walk have to trek because all those slots are taken. Around here, turning 65 apparently entitles just about everyone to park in handicapped. I feel the same way about Service Dogs. If the trend grows too big, it could affect the ability of service dogs to enter buildings, automatically suspect. I mean, you can't have a boatload of service dogs sitting in a restaurant all at once. It certainly would, for example, preclude people who are allergic. Then, like you said, there are those who *think* their dogs are trained. There will be incidents and this will negatively impact the program. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone who doesn't need a service dog would create their own karma that way.

I think you are right. This could create some real problems for people who really depend on these dogs for their own mobility.

 

[jason_els]

Essentially what would have to happen is the states or the federal government would have to create a process of special licensing for the dogs. Dogs would have to wear a special harness made available only to service dogs to prove their legitimacy.

1. Person has a medically certified disability for which a dog may be useful. A physician certifies a form stating this.
2. The person either trains the dog or receives a dog from a training organization licensed by the state or federal government proving dog is able to perform as needed for the disability in question. If dog is self-trained, organization tests dog.
3. Person submits dog ID information, dog training organizational certification, and the physician authorization, to the governmental licensing authority and dog is given a special government-issue tag with photo or other identifier proving the dog is legitimate.

All the service dog training organizations that I know of would not want nor could afford the extra expense of becoming a governmental regulatory agency. It's more work, money, and time for them. What would be a passing grade for a dog? Who would be authorized to make that decision? Would that person need a license too? Who would decide what the standards are for each dog? If a dog can do 99% of the tasks to pass but misses one or two things, then what happens? How long would the entire process take? Would there be a flood of people running to service dog training providers or their physicians? Should the authority for licensure rest with the municipalities, counties, states, or federal government? Who is to decide what needs might require a dog or other animal? Should that be left to health care professionals or should their be a government board which approves a list? What if someone believes he or she needs a dog but can't get one and therefore feels denied their rights under the ADA? Who do they appeal to?

Until all this can be worked out, we have to stand by any dog which is used as a service animal lest we deny the truly needful. The ADA clearly states that no property owner may ask what the dog is used for and that is right. People with disabilities are entitled to privacy and self-respect. Having to explain what your dog is used for is as good as having to tell everyone that your are disabled and what that disability is. Imagine if you had to tell everyone you met in the course of your day that you were partially deaf, epileptic, partially blind, had a debilitating phobia, or restricted movement? Would you want to go out? What would that do to your self-esteem?

The ADA guidelines on service dogs is correct but the implementation needs work. I don't know how to solve it but until it is, we must give the benefit of doubt to all people claiming to use dogs for service purposes. It is detrimental to deny the needs of a few because of the abuse of a few. If we do that then there is no point in permitting service dogs at all.

 

[adoptashelterpettoday]

It would be rude to ask someone what condition they had that made them need a service dog.

Same reason your doctor cant go around telling everyone what conditions/issues YOU have.

As for the dog in the other thread (I know that is one you are talking about), the dog has went through a lot of service dog training. The girl's email is on her site, why dont you email her and get all of her information then verify it and notorize it?

To me, there are more important issues than someone wanting to train "fluffy" as a service dog so he can go places with the owner. More important things would include people dumping their animals, people abusing their animals, people stealing animals, exc. When "service dogs" start attacking people because someone just put a "service dog" vest on Fido, that is when I would start to worry about the problem, not when there is no problem at all.

Or you should contact a service dog training center and inform them of your concerns and see what THEY think?

How offended would you be if you were epileptic and had a seizure alert dog and every time you went somewhere you were asked why you had the dog? You probably just would stop going anywhere.

 

[ToscasMom]

Essentially what would have to happen is the states or the federal government would have to create a process of special licensing for the dogs.

There goes the program.:yikes: :yikes: :yikes:

 

[ToscasMom]

I don't think anybody who has a legimate need should have to tell anybody why. I don't even think that would stand a constitutional test. What we do need to do is nip the potential abuse in the bud. I remember a few years back when there were arguments with people in condos in Florida who wanted a pet because of their positive affect on blood pressure. It was resolved with a doctor's prescription in some cases. I just think in the near future there needs to be some kind of proof that the person 1)needs the service dog for legitimately identified purposes rather than their own arbitrary purpose and 2)has had the dog appropriately/professionally trained, perhaps tested by Service Dog organizations at a suitable fee. That should slow em' down a bit.

 

[ACooper]

I am not claiming to be among them, but there are people fully capable of training their dog for the things they need them to do, or have a family member help to train.

I definitely agree that their should be an official test and licensing procedure................I wouldn't think it would be unconstitional to need to produce a copy of your dogs cert/license when taking the dog into places.
Who should be offended by that? (unless they have no cert)

 

[Gempress]

As for the dog in the other thread (I know that is one you are talking about), the dog has went through a lot of service dog training. The girl's email is on her site, why dont you email her and get all of her information then verify it and notorize it?

That's not the only thread I'm talking about. There was also a recent thread on the general forum in which the poster was actually BITTEN by someone's "service dog" while in a public place.

How offended would you be if you were epileptic and had a seizure alert dog and every time you went somewhere you were asked why you had the dog? You probably just would stop going anywhere.

I agree, people shouldn't have to say what their service dog is for. I was just trying to point out that current laws make it impossible to even verify whether an animal is really a genuine service dog or a housepet in a vest.

I guess my big issue is this. Federal law makes it illegal for business to deny access to service dogs. Any that do so will find themselves in a lot of hot water. But there is no standard to define what a service dog is! The business can't even ask for proof without breaking a law. I find it extremely unfair for independent businesses to comply with a law that seems to have a "no questions asked" policy. It's great for the rights of those with service animals, but IMHO, it's very unjust to everyone else.

I think that there should be some kind of ID/license process of some kind. So if there are questions, the service dog owners could just present an ID card or something and go on their merry way.

Just my two cents.

 

[planet molosser]

Yes I know of some dogs that are not service dogs and yet get special public allowances because of the vest.
I also know of many who claim their dogs are Therapy dogs when they did not even pass any test. OF if one dog did they claim all of them are "working therapy dogs"

NOt realizing most dogs bred for generations as Therapy dogs or real assit dogs do NOT make the cut from real people dedicated to this.

Sad all it takes is one fraud to ruin it for all.

 

[adoptashelterpettoday]

I must have missed the other thread??

Then yes it is a problem.

That is nuts! Do you have a link to that thread?

 

[Dreeza]

I Completely agree with you gemp...there really should be some certification process...the one issue i see with that is the gov't decides to create some type of monopoly and make it extremely expensive to have one...and then of course, anyone with money can get one...

I think you need to have a legitamite medical issue to have one, and i think some sort of ID is a good idea. I dont understand why it would be such a problem for a shopkeeper to ask to see the ID...which may or may not contain the medical issue (which i think it should...so if something were to happen, EMS would be able to easier identify how to help the person)

Whats so bad about saying you have epilepsy??? but i know that is getting into a whole other issue...so we wont go there.

Something does need to be done to protect those who NEED a service dog to remain independent. If stupid ppl keep messing up the integrity of service dogs, it will become a very sad situation for the ones who truly need one

 

[adoptashelterpettoday]

Whats so bad about saying you have epilepsy??? but i know that is getting into a whole other issue...so we wont go there.

Sometimes people with disabilities like to be treated like "normal" people. They dont want EVERYONE to know they have a certain disease.

Like I said you wouldnt want to have to tell someone every medical condition you have when entering a store.

They deserve a right to privacy.

I do agree though if people are dressing Fluffy up like a service dog and Fluffy bites someone, something has to be done.

 

[Gempress]

I must have missed the other thread??

Then yes it is a problem.

That is nuts! Do you have a link to that thread?

Here's the thread I was talking about:

http://www.chazhound.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45596

 

[ToscasMom]

I do agree though if people are dressing Fluffy up like a service dog and Fluffy bites someone, something has to be done.

Although I hate this word, I think being PROACTIVE rather than REACTIVE would be very important here. We don't want people fearing service dogs because of past issues and the publicity that would spread like wildfire. That would be a travesty.

 

[adoptashelterpettoday]

That thread is nuts. #1 why did she let her dog off the leash in the first place.

#2-""Oh she gets excited but usually with just kids"--that's just scary. Yeah..biting kids is acceptable...

I do believe though that some people, like Jupiter, can train their service dogs themselves.

I guess I am naieve to have always been under the assumption that no one would attach a "service dog vest" to an dog with such issues. That's sad..Maybe the reputable service dog groups can get together and lobby congress for a change in the laws.

Maybe get something like a CGC test set up for service dogs?

 

[RD]

Good post, Jason! I agree.

Personally, I don't think it can ever be worked out so that everyone wins. The biggest problem would, to me, be deciding who would be in control of this certification. Who has the right to say that one dog can be a service dog and another cannot? I would imagine it would be one universal "test" in order to certify the animal, but WHAT kind of test would be appropriate for all service dogs? It would be a ton of money and a lot of effort, and it would be left up to the American government which is even scarier.

If people want to take their dog into a store, take the dog. I have social anxiety disorder, and I don't feel comfortable going places without one of my dogs. I take Dakota just about everywhere, save places like supermarkets just for sanitary reasons (he's very clean but people don't know that). I keep him on a secure harness and a short leash. He is very well behaved and I've never been asked to leave, and only once was I asked if he was a service dog. I said no and the manager who asked me didn't care, he just kept petting Dakota. I think a good deal of business owners are very welcoming towards well-behaved pets. People don't need to claim that their pets are service animals in order to bring them places, and I wish they would stop abusing the "service dog" label when they really don't need an animal for assistance.

 

[otch1]

Thank you for posting that thread Gempress. This is a difficult topic. It takes a great deal of expertise to properly evaluate the temperament of a potential service dog, while it's a puppy. A lot goes into the breeding program itself, prior to that. (Health testing, temperament testing, ect) A lot goes into the raising, conditioning, training and socialization of that dog, until maturity. (Approx. 2 yrs) Then approx 6 to 12 mos. specialized training after that, by a qualified trainer(s). There is a lot that goes into a service, hearing or guide dog before they are left with the recipient. Even then, these are live animals and one has just so much control of them, so I believe there should be no cutting corners in the training process.

 

[casablanca1]

The ADA clearly states that no property owner may ask what the dog is used for and that is right.

From what I've read, the ADA says if you own a business and someone walks in with a dog, you are 1) allowed to ask them if the dog is a service dog, and 2) ask them what special tasks the dog's been trained to perform. What you're not supposed to do is grill the person about their disability.

People with disabilities are entitled to privacy and self-respect. Having to explain what your dog is used for is as good as having to tell everyone that your are disabled and what that disability is. Imagine if you had to tell everyone you met in the course of your day that you were partially deaf, epileptic, partially blind, had a debilitating phobia, or restricted movement? Would you want to go out? What would that do to your self-esteem?

I think that the obvious solution is a standardized testing and certification of service animals. But as it stands, I don't see how it's cut-and-dried that the person without a visible disability can't be questioned about their illness. Why should protecting the self-esteem of an epileptic person be more valuable than protecting the physical well-being of another person? Many disabled people already have to cope with having their disability clear and evident wherever they go. Those who don't are luckier in that respect, as they keep more of the helpful image of being 'normal' but does that mean their good fortune should be protected at all costs?

 

[Debi]

I'd like to see service dogs have actual certification. we have someone in our family that decided her rabbit is a 'service rabbit'. yep..she says she suffers from depression, and bun-bun keeps her calm. soooo, she had a paper printed out from the internet, and some sort of bogus tag. now she takes bun-bun into every restaurant and store. I think it's a crying shame that those places of business have to put up with such nonsense. nobody wants a person in true need to ever be denied, but it's pathetic that businesses (and other patrons...hey, I don't want to eat with bun-bun..sorry) have to put up with folks that can't leave their pets at home. it will get to a point that there will have to be special licensing to prove the dog is truly trained to perform the task you claim.