Service dogs

[Erica]

I can see a self trained Psychiatric Service Dog in my *near* future, so this thread kind of hits home. The problem with a certification process for the service dog is it would have to be so vague that everyone would pass it, or there would have to be 3,000 different certifications for the different disorders that people DO HAVE legit service dogs for.
I don't take Rien out with me everywhere and nor is he my service dog. He doesn't have the work ethic for that sort of thing -- sure, he'd like to help me, but wow doesn't this leaf smell good?? As my condition worsens and progresses, it's going to be nice to have a task trained dog to block, brace, and generally distract. When I get into a certain mental state, my mind is one track unless I'm physically pushed out of the state. I can't ask people to do this, considering what state I'm in, and I'm lucky when people do it automatically. Those people aren't going to be around much longer, since I'm going to college away from them.
Do I think every Joe Schmo with a little depression should be allowed to have a service dog? Not neccessarily -- if you can go out into the world and function without the dog, you don't need the dog. If the dog isn't task trained (at least 3 legit tasks is what the ADA requires), it's not good for people who need dogs and have legit dogs.
Certification is fine, but it would need to be really refined to be appropriate. For example, your hearing dog doesn't need to "block" or "brace" or "nudge." My PSD doesn't need to sit at curbs or detect a seizure. It would be almost impossible. Until people realize that Emotional Support Dogs are not legitimate Service Dogs, this will continue to be a problem. Store managers are too afraid of legal reprocussions to really inquire about a dog's abilities or job. Sometimes they don't know their rights -- they don't know they can ask you what sort of tasks your dog preforms in public to assist you. "Hug" and "kiss" are not tasks.

It's the same as practically everything in the world -- a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

 

[Babyblue5290]

I actually have seen a "service dog" in a store growling at almost every person that passed by! It was definetly NOT a socialized/trained dog! Sad really, my friends had asked me at the time why they'd allow that thing to be a service dog :/

 

[Cassie Abbott]

Maybe I'm out of the loop on some juicy news, but is this really a problem? I mean, dogs that are "service dogs" by vest only going to public places? I've seen relatively few service dogs to begin with and those that I have seen look legit. I've never even seen a service dog in any public store or restaurant. I can understand the principle behind making sure all "service dogs" are properly trained, but I don't see it as a big enough issue to warrant such an expensive and time consuming certification process. If I were a service dog agency I'd want to see significant numbers from good sources that indicated it was a major issue before I invested that much into a potentially minor issue.

I do agree with other posts that a potentially dangerous faux service dog would tarnish the public image of legit ones.

 

[Babyblue5290]

I can see a self trained Psychiatric Service Dog in my *near* future, so this thread kind of hits home. The problem with a certification process for the service dog is it would have to be so vague that everyone would pass it, or there would have to be 3,000 different certifications for the different disorders that people DO HAVE legit service dogs for.

I think there should be a general temperment test as well as a general test of how these dogs react in common public situations at the very least. This may not help root out all the people without real need of these dogs, but it might root out a few who are too lazy to do the tests and keep dogs with horrible temperments from it.

I understand different service dogs perform different tasks based on what it's owner needs so it wouldn't be possible to test those tasks, but if the dog reacts negatively in public it most likely won't be much help to it's owner anyway, it would be more of a hinderance.

 

[jason_els]

I think there should be a general temperament test as well as a general test of how these dogs react in common public situations at the very least.

This sounds like a good idea. It gives a basis for the dog's public interaction which is really what is at the heart of the whole problem. A well-behaved, predictable dog shouldn't be a problem anywhere, service dog or not.

 

[Dreeza]

Maybe I'm out of the loop on some juicy news, but is this really a problem? I mean, dogs that are "service dogs" by vest only going to public places? I've seen relatively few service dogs to begin with and those that I have seen look legit. I've never even seen a service dog in any public store or restaurant. I can understand the principle behind making sure all "service dogs" are properly trained, but I don't see it as a big enough issue to warrant such an expensive and time consuming certification process. If I were a service dog agency I'd want to see significant numbers from good sources that indicated it was a major issue before I invested that much into a potentially minor issue.

I do agree with other posts that a potentially dangerous faux service dog would tarnish the public image of legit ones.

.... It's called being proactive.

I've run into like 3 service dogs my whole life, so ive never had any bad experiences. But they are becoming more popular and more common, and as that happens, more and more people who do not need them will want one, just so that they can bring their own dog everywhere.

I dont think the certification should really deal with the dog's ability as a service animal necessarily, seeing as that would be too complicated...but the dog should be well behaved, and not be biting people for crying out loud, lol!! On top of that, i think in order to have a service dog with you in a public place, you NEED to have a legitamite medical reason....at least some sort of ID that states you are allowed to have one...and storeowners should have every right to confirm you have one (and no...they dont need to know your medical condition)

 

[Gempress]

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.

OMG Debi, that gave me a great laugh. I just have this mental picture of a little bunny wearing a vest that says "Don't pet me: service animal at work". :lol-sign:

 

[RD]

Personally, I disagree that people need to have a legit medical reason to bring a dog with them to a public place. I don't have a severe disability that requires physical assistance, nor do I have a severe mental disability that requires an animal to perform tasks for me. I do have other "common" issues, along with the one that I mentioned which makes it very stressful for me to go out in public. My dog isn't a service dog, but he is impeccably behaved and harms nobody by being in a public place with me, glued to my side. While he doesn't help me to get around or detect seizures, his presence enables me to collect myself and do what I need to do. I never bring him anywhere where food is sold, unless I have permission. But I would be seriously limited in what I can comfortably do if my dog was not allowed to go places with me. I'd basically be a hermit if every store I went to turned us away because Dakota isn't a service dog. I know my issues aren't major and I shouldn't be such a wimp about doing things without my dog, but sometimes I just want to go places and feel normal and secure, and his presence really helps with that. I forget who posted it, but "emotinal support" is a good way to put it. He doesn't do me any service that I couldn't do on my own, but he makes a huge difference to me.

Bleh, and I hate talking about my issues but I wish people could understand that not everyone who takes their pets out in public is taking advantage. Some people actually have a reason.

If anything should be "proven" it should be the dog - I like the idea of temperament and training testing rather than "specific" testing of the dog's tasks and verification of its purpose. Basically, just extensively test that the dog is sound in temperament, well trained and safe before giving it some sort of ID. Anything else is a bit too personal for the person with the disability, IMO.

I'd honestly rather just deal with the mock "service dogs" than encourage more government of this issue. We need less government, not more . . .

 

[Dreeza]

RD...i have absolutely ZERO issue with you, or anyone taking a dog with them in public places...i didnt even know you took Dakota with you b/c of any issues. I love when people take their dog's to places...cause then i get to pet them

You dont put a vest on him though, and pretend he is one...

If someone turned you away, i am assuming you wouldn't argue with them....

I'm talking about people who take advantage of the system, and bring untrained dogs into places where dogs normally are not allowed, and claim its ok cause they are "service dogs".

I definatley do agree that more government is bad though...

Ugh, this wouldnt even be an issue if people would stop being so freaking inconsiderate.

 

[otch1]

You make a legitmate point RD. It is very different here, verses say Europe, where you'll find dogs quietly laying under someones table at a restaurant, or walking thru a public market or store. All pets. Not a dilema there. We had a big discussion about this once at a board meeting... "how dare one organization suggest they shouild be considered the governing body for all certification proccesses". There was a group at the time, well recognized, that wanted to persue this. Everyone was rather upset at the prospect. It will end up, when the time comes, being about the dogs ability to display appropriate temperament, physical control and the ability to aid the handler in some way, whatever that may be when considering a uniform certification proccess. Not nessecarily which commands the dog can perform. One organization may have a much more intensive program with 15 more identified commands being executed by the dog, than the next group. That doesn't mean the later is not a service dog. And neither dog, regardless of level of training, should be considered a service dog if they're not displaying appropriate behavior/temperament. I've see many dogs, beautifully trained, not pass certification after all of that training, but rather go on to a social/facility placement. It's as much about the safety of the physically challenged individual handling this dog, as it is the safety of the general public that this dog comes in contact with. Not all dogs are able to meet the challenge, regardless of training and I find the more experienced groups are able to identify this very early on when they consider a pup for their program. Hopefully, this industry will come to an agreement on how to handle this before the governent does have to get involved, as the physically challenged community will be the one's to ultimately suffer if this isn't resolved.

 

[Erica]

On top of that, i think in order to have a service dog with you in a public place, you NEED to have a legitamite medical reason....at least some sort of ID that states you are allowed to have one...and storeowners should have every right to confirm you have one (and no...they dont need to know your medical condition)

This feels to me like an invasion of privacy, though I'm sure it's not what you meant it to be.

Not all Service Dogs are *visible disability* service dogs. There's Fibromyalgia, Autism, Epilepsy, Diabetes, and all sorts of people with psychiatric problems who need a service dog for whatever reason. The laws as they are aren't *bad* -- store owners CAN confirm you have a disability, by asking you if you do have one and what tasks your dog preforms. That's good enough. I shouldn't be arsed to carry around *another* freaking card that says I'm DISABLED ENOUGH to have a service dog. That makes me, personally, feel like a second class citizen and I'm sure others with disabilities wouldn't pause to say the same.

I think at this point, education is the key. People AND storeowners need to know what exactly the ADA states their rights are. People need to realize that they cannot use "service dog" as a mask to take their dog everywhere with them. If a dog is being poorly behaved in a store, it's likely that it isn't task trained and the owner wouldn't get anywhere if they decided to sue Joe Schmo who owns a business, or WalMart, even. You need to show three legitimate tasks before the courts, and I've heard they can be harsh.

The obvious solution to this problem is having well trained dogs across the board, or at least well raised dogs. Europe :hail: :hail: :hail: has it right. It seems an idealized place in many dog behavior forums I visit, but it was true when I was in France -- their dogs were less anthropomorphized, and thus they behaved better.

 

[bittervanityx]

Funny this should come up. I saw a lady in Giant food stores today with a little... fluffy... thing... with a bright orange coat. I really didn't see anything wrong with this person (physically) except she was way overweight.

=\ but i guess disabilities arent always physical.

 

[IliamnasQuest]

Personally I think there should be some qualifications the dog and owner must meet in order for a dog to be considered a service dog. These don't have to be hugely stringent - but there needs to be some justification and not only a wish to have your dog with you. I'd love to take my dogs everywhere and I do take them in a number of businesses. As long as it's okay with the business and I'm not promoting my dog as a service dog when it's not, then it's between me and the business and nothing else comes into it. But for someone to declare their dog to be a service dog when there has been no proven training or justification is only going to create problems for real service animals and owners.

At the very least, animals used for service tasks should have to pass temperament and basic obedience testing. I'm talking a bit more than the CGC .. more like Delta Society does, where the dog is tested on CGC type activities and also on reactions to loud noises, sudden movements from people, being bumped into, etc. Dogs used as service animals need to be extremely well-behaved and very safe to the public.

Service tasks are individually based, so to me proving that wouldn't be nearly as important.

And I do think that the owner should have to carry some sort of verification that they are allowed a service dog. It doesn't have to say why they need a service dog. People who park in handicapped spots have to have some verification too. Heck, for a therapy dog visit Khana wears identification as do I. It isn't a problem. It could even be something affixed to a person's driver's license or permanent ID.

If/when I need a service dog, I'd like to be comfortable in knowing that the businesses I go to haven't already had a bad experience with someone who claimed to have a "service dog".

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

 

[tessa_s212]

Personally I think there should be some qualifications the dog and owner must meet in order for a dog to be considered a service dog. These don't have to be hugely stringent - but there needs to be some justification and not only a wish to have your dog with you. I'd love to take my dogs everywhere and I do take them in a number of businesses. As long as it's okay with the business and I'm not promoting my dog as a service dog when it's not, then it's between me and the business and nothing else comes into it. But for someone to declare their dog to be a service dog when there has been no proven training or justification is only going to create problems for real service animals and owners.

At the very least, animals used for service tasks should have to pass temperament and basic obedience testing. I'm talking a bit more than the CGC .. more like Delta Society does, where the dog is tested on CGC type activities and also on reactions to loud noises, sudden movements from people, being bumped into, etc. Dogs used as service animals need to be extremely well-behaved and very safe to the public.

Service tasks are individually based, so to me proving that wouldn't be nearly as important.

And I do think that the owner should have to carry some sort of verification that they are allowed a service dog. It doesn't have to say why they need a service dog. People who park in handicapped spots have to have some verification too. Heck, for a therapy dog visit Khana wears identification as do I. It isn't a problem. It could even be something affixed to a person's driver's license or permanent ID.

If/when I need a service dog, I'd like to be comfortable in knowing that the businesses I go to haven't already had a bad experience with someone who claimed to have a "service dog".

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

I agree with everything said here. There should be a test to certify ANY dog, no matter if it is owner trained, or trained by a service dog company.

And a verification surely would limit any problems!

 

[Erica]

if/When I need a Service Dog, I'm going to get certification through Delta, simply because if my SDit can't pass that test then it shouldn't be out in public and I've been known to have a rather biased view of my dogs.

I think ID/Certification for the dog is fine and nice, but there's something I'm opposed to at the basest level when it comes to human identification. It must be a personal probably.

 

[doberkim]

I also know of many people that claim their dogs are service dogs that have minimal training, no certification, and others that simply use that term so that they can take their dogs places like the mall - purely because they CANNOT be questioned.

I don't see a problem with certification - it has nothing to do with what your disability is (be it a psychological, physical, mental, emotional, etc reason) - but if your dog is TRAINED< it should be able to pass a test that it is stable and CAN perform some task for you, and then you can have a special card or license that indicates your dog IS trained. no one needs to know for WHAt , or what your disability is - but it protects OTHERS from people who just want to bring fluffy to the mall.

 

[IliamnasQuest]

I think ID/Certification for the dog is fine and nice, but there's something I'm opposed to at the basest level when it comes to human identification. It must be a personal probably.

An identification for the person needs not be any more invasive than having "needs corrective lenses" on your driver's license is. It's merely some sort of confirmation that you have, indeed, qualified to have a service dog. Since you're already out in public with the dog and going into places where dogs typically aren't allowed then you are already acknowledging that you have a use for a service dog, and it isn't any more acknowledgement when you have something that says "yep, this is legit".

I don't see it as punishing those that do need it .. I see it as making sure that their rights aren't screwed up by those who don't.

Like I said, if/when I need a service dog I don't want people to view it as a scam just because it's been treated that way by others. I have an auto-immune disease and I've already spent months bedridden because of it. I know the potential for that to happen again is always there. When that happens, I will contact my doctor and ask for a written statement of my need for a service dog and I will carry documentation with me in order to take my dog places if I need the assistance. And if I need to do more stringent verification, I will. I respect a business's right to provide a safe clean environment for their customers and I would like the business to respect my right to a service dog. It's a mutual thing and by providing verification they can be comfortable with my dog on their premises.

I love seeing a good service dog at work with their partner. Unfortunately, the last "service" dog I saw here was a badly behaved dog with an owner that calls it a service dog although I don't feel it has nearly enough training to qualify. Those are the dogs that make them all look bad.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

 

[Erica]

It's a mutual thing and by providing verification they can be comfortable with my dog on their premises.

Unfortunately, the last "service" dog I saw here was a badly behaved dog with an owner that calls it a service dog although I don't feel it has nearly enough training to qualify.

As far as my experiences here in Nort'ern Minnesota, people are only comfortable with service dogs if they're wearing your typical leather harness or if they're accompanied by someone in a wheelchair. In my work at a skeezy chain retail store, I've noticed many people who decide that they're cool enough to just bring their dog in, some even decide their dogs don't need leashes. This isn't small town America, exactly -- my town has a population of 90,000odd. I brought up the specific case of the Pom without a leash following its person around the store, occasionally getting distracted by displays or other customers, to my manager. He said, "Well... If its a service dog, we can't do anything." I told him the questions he was allowed to ask, but he'd rather skip the "trouble" or the possible reprocussions. I think there needs to be just as much education on the business side of things. The ADA is still pretty fresh, and people are afraid of getting sued. So many businesses don't know the questions they are allowed to ask. And then there are the businesses that just don't give a d**n, who could also stand for a little education.
I think educating both the business end and the public end would be the best way for this. But then, I'm kind of an idealist -- I guess I've got some growing up to do. But if people and businesses knew their rights and their restrictions, AND RESPECTED THEM, there would be no problem.

As for the identification -- if it's as small and uninvasive as that, who's going to check it would be my concern? I think Wal*Mart would much prefer it if I had a string of garlic around my neck with a laminated card or something.

 

[rottenrotti]

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

And walking around with a dog with a bright orange vest makes them blend right in?

I don't have a problem with owners training their own dogs but they should still have to pass tests like the Canine Good Citizen as a minimum. I believe that the owners of private property have every right (and should becuase of due diligence) to ask for documentation prior to allowing any animal in their store. It should be like handicap parking passes, you need to show a doctor's certificate, etc to get them and then they need to be prominantly displayed.

 

[ToscasMom]

I guess I have been out of touch. I thought that service dogs were allowed anywhere for people who have serious physical disabilities that make it impossible for them to be mobile without a dog to substitute for a needed sense such as hearing or seeing-- or mobility requirements. Also for illnesses such as epilepsy, where a dog can forwarn and keep the person from danger. What I am reading here is a huge expansion to span just about everything arbitrarily, physical or emotional. Not that I personally object, but if limits are not set, it is conceivable that enclosed public places could be inundated with dogs, which could create a whole 'nuther set of problems for the public at-large. I would imagine, for example, that someone who is allergic to dog dander would have to become house-bound themselves. Then there are the doo doo accidents, the potential dog fights, health department issues.....the list could get long. Overall, I would say that it could easily get out of hand, and left unchecked, it's a very good bet that the government will get involved in restricting which particular problems actually require a service dog. I hate when governments get involved in things like this.