Jul 30, 2010

You Can Train The Dog, But Can You Train The Human?

Al , , , Service Dogs

Great timing on this new video today.

First, it’s funny (and I can definitely use a laugh with all the serious stuff I’ve been writing about here lately), and, second, it gives you a real behind-the-scenes look at just what it takes to train service and hearing dogs to perform actual tasks for people with physical issues who really need them (as opposed to all the “feelgood dogs” I see stories about daily – sorry, said I wasn’t gonna get serious).

Rob and Joss from radio station KFGY in Santa Rosa, California do “we come do your job” stories, and, as part of that, went to the Canine Companions for Independence National Headquarters and Northwest Regional Center that are co-located there. Lotta familiar faces and places in this video that bring back great memories for me and likely anyone else who’s been to the Santa Rosa campus:

 

 

Lots I could say, but here’s the one key concept I want you to take away from this one.

Amidst all the humor, note how big a factor the human end of the leash is. A common comment from CCI graduates after attending the two-week Team Training at one of the regional centers is something like “We learned very quickly that the dogs were not gonna be the problem – we were. The dogs were very well trained – the trainers had to train US to be able to be smart enough to work with them.” One of those “I’m joking, but really I’m not” things.

That’s something that gets lost in the discussion about service dogs – most people naturally think about the dog taking care of the human, especially if it’s someone with severe physical issues, but they don’t think about the human taking care of the dog. And that’s a HUGE part of the equation, something you need to be thinking about whenever you see service dogs talked about as a possible solution, both for a group of people and on an individual level as well. The top organizations know that, and it’s a key part of evaluating whether someone is a good candidate for a dog.

And that also means that a key piece is having trainers who not only are training masters when it comes to the dogs, they also have to deal with a wide range of people with varying physical abilities and personalities, with some associated emotional stuff going on in some cases as well, and they have to be able to effectively train them to work as a team with the dogs. That’s something that even those of us closely associated with CCI forget about a lotta times, and why I have such a tremendous respect for those trainers.

Again, a great video.

Jul 27, 2010

“Oh, Yeah – My Service Dog Does That For Me, Too.”

Al , , , Service Dogs

I stay on top of things and always pay attention to trends in the service dog world, especially where veterans are involved, and several I’ve seen lately concern me. Here’s one…

I’ve read a number of recent stories where a veteran has a service dog, the veteran has no physical injuries, the dog has been given to the veteran solely to help them deal with post-traumatic stress, and yet the dog has been trained to perform physical tasks (e.g., picking up dropped objects) for someone with physical issues who requires those functions.  Sometimes you have to read between the lines to figure that out, other times I’ve seen the articles come right out and say the tasks weren’t needed for this person, but were taught in case the dog had a partner with physical issues that needed them.

Whenever you see that, it should raise big red flags with you.

First, you gotta ask yourself – why would somebody go to the trouble and expend all the time, effort, and expense necessary to train a dog to perform physical tasks for someone who doesn’t need them, and very likely never will during the life of the dog? Or put a little differently, why would you train a dog that way and then not give it to a veteran who needed those skills? Particularly when there are so many people with severe physical injuries who actually do need a dog to perform those functions for them.

Now I don’t know the answers to that in these specific cases, and I can’t tell you that this is what’s going on there, but I CAN tell you what the history has been. Which you likely are not aware of unless you’ve followed a discussion that’s been going on in the service dog world for a number of years now.

Historically, this has been done to circumvent (or comply with, depending upon your point of view) the ADA. Where it’s come up has normally only been where someone has a dog whose only stated function is to provide them emotional support for a mental health issue and they get called on it, i.e., what does the dog do for them, is it a legitimate service dog, and do they have public access?

If you look at these cases, what you’ll see is that the person with the dog will often make an argument like this: “Yes, it’s a legitimate service dog and helps me cope with (fill in the psychological issue they are dealing with), BUT I also have (balance problems or hearing problems or some other physical issue) and the dog helps me with that, too.”  In other words, “I’m covered whichever way you wanna go”.

Let’s be clear here – just like in these current stories, the dogs were never described as “dual purpose”. The people made no bones all along about what the dog’s role for them was – the secondary physical stuff only came up when they got pressed on the subject. Hence the title of this post.

Another one we can debate all day long and where the law is not gonna be any help. My goal as always is just for you to be aware of something that might not be so obvious, ask the right questions, and then make your own decisions about what you’re willing to support. Because that’s what’s gonna drive whether or not this kinda stuff continues to be done.

For me, though, just doesn’t rack up right, no matter how you try to explain it.

Jul 26, 2010

Bet You Have No Idea Just How Low The Bar Is To Say Your Dog Is A Service Dog

Al , Service Dogs

I used to say “You can slap a cape on any dog and call it a service dog.”, but that’s not really true – you don’t even need the cape.

You know, I honestly didn’t write this today because it’s the 20th anniversary of the ADA with all the associated attention, or because the revisions to the existing part of the regulation covering service animals were just signed by the Attorney General Friday, although both those things make it a great time to bring this up.

My guess is most people are clueless about just how low the bar is for saying your dog is a service dog. All you have to do is be able to answer these two questions the right way:

  • Is your dog required because of a disability?
  • What does your dog do for you?

If you answer “Yes” to the first one and say something like “He picks up things for me.” in answer to the second, that’s it – you’re in. Assuming, of course, the dog is not a threat to anyone’s safety or out of control, in which case you can be asked to remove it.

Note what’s NOT there. You can’t ask what the person’s disability is, or make them have the dog demonstrate whatever function it is they’ve said that it does, or ask them to show proof (e.g., a card or ID) that it’s a service dog (since, in spite all those registry places you read about, there’s no such thing). No specific standards for how well the dog has to do its job. No cape requirement.

I know what you’re thinking – can’t be that simple.  With all the court cases and legal hoopla you read about all the time, how can that be?

Well, here’s the pertinent section right out of the latest version of the regulation that the Attorney General signed Friday and will take effect later:

(6) Inquiries. A public accommodation shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person´s disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. A public accommodation may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. A public accommodation shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Generally, a public accommodation may not make these inquiries about a service animal when it is readily apparent that an animal is trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability (e.g., the dog is observed guiding an individual who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person´s wheelchair, or providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with an observable mobility disability).
28 CFR Part 36 Subpart C 36.302 (6)

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/reg3_2010.html

We could talk about this one for days, but here’s the lesson I want you to take from this: the law is not gonna get us where we wanna go here. Never will.

Jul 24, 2010

When You Hear “Service Dog”, Think “Public Access”

Al , , Service Dogs

Because public access is what drives and frames the whole service dog discussion.

When somebody says their dog is a service dog, public access is really what we’re talking about. If I describe my dog that way, the clear implication is that the dog does stuff for me and I can take it with me wherever I want. And, when it comes down to it, that’s the primary, if not only, reason to differentiate your dog in that way. (Note I didn’t say that that’s what defines a service dog – that’s another post.)

Keep in mind that, unless I state otherwise, my goal here is to give you brief, real world, practical, useful definitions and explanations that you can operate from daily, and not textbook, dictionary, or legal ones – you can go look those up for yourself, anyway.  In that vein, think of public access as “having your dog somewhere dogs normally aren’t allowed.”

Public access is the big threshold. Once you say a dog team (and note I said “team” – the human is an oft-overlooked critical component here, funny as that might sound) needs to be able to function in the public access environment, that changes and colors EVERYTHING – selection, training, evaluation, conditioning, legal factors, breed choice, you name it – it’s a lot longer list.  It adds an orders-of-magnitude level of stuff on top of just having a regular ol’, well-behaved, nice dog.

And that’s where the heart of this issue lies. If you really do need public access, it’s great to know it’s there for you and it’s a wonderful thing, but that comes at a price – there’s a lot of effort and responsibility that goes with it.

On the other hand, if you don’t really need to be able to have your dog in places where dogs aren’t normally allowed, and all you really want is a nice companion dog who’s maybe even trained to perform some service dog-like tasks for you, and to be able to go out in the vast majority of outside public areas where dogs ARE allowed, why bother?

Because once you remove that requirement, it opens things up tremendously, and makes things a lot easier for both you and those of us who are trying to help you.

It’s like how a very nice young lady occupational therapist from the South I was talking to at the National Veterans Wheelchair Games in Denver a coupla weeks ago put it. I was talking about this very subject, and I said “…and if somebody doesn’t really need one…”, and in her sweet Mississippi accent she finished my sentence with “…you could just get one from the pound!” Wasn’t said in a mean way at all, either – in fact, exactly the opposite – very nicely and just a simple statement of an obvious fact.

Exactly.

Where this issue normally comes up is in one area – “on the line” dogs where there’s a legitimate question about whether the dog is a true service dog, or a companion – a “feelgood dog”, as you will see me refer to them here. But here’s the thing – if you remove the public access part, that problem and the associated dance about whether the dog is actually performing any real tasks goes away.

Now I’m not suggesting for a moment that if somebody truly needs a service dog they should suck it up and not get one.  All I’m asking is that you take a hard look at whether you or someone you’re trying to help really needs public access, and let’s not press the issue just for the sake of pressing the issue when there’s no real need to do that.

Jul 22, 2010

Waving The BS Flag

Al , , , Service Dogs

Every day I see dog stories that are…well, frankly, bull.

Nowhere do I see this problem more than with the almost constant daily barrage now of feelgood stories about dogs doing wonderful things for military people, both active duty and veterans, particularly those who are suffering with post-traumatic stress as their primary issue.  Problem is, when you look closer and you know what to look for, there’s a lotta bull in those stories.  Well-meaning bull, but bull nonetheless.

And it’s not simple true or false stuff you can just punch into Snopes and it’ll tell you which it is, either – there’s more to it than that and you’ve gotta learn what to look for.  That’s been my intent all along on this site – educate people and correct a lot of the misinformation that floats around.  I don’t care so much whether you agree with me (although that’d be great) or not – you make your own decisions – I just want you to be smart, know what to look for, and have the facts when you make them.

My constant dilemma is what do I just let go, what’s worth bringing up, and if I’m going to do that, how do I do it in an effective way that doesn’t just come across as one big continuous whine or “it’s all about me” arrogant.  Because of that, I’ve sat on most all of these stories, countless times where I’ve written something and then said, “Nah, why bother? People just wanna hear feelgood stuff. Leave it alone.”  Well, I’m at a point now where I don’t know if I can do that any longer, and I want to set the tone for that.

Some of that is due to the cumulative effect of all those stories on me over time, but mostly it’s because things are getting worse, with more and more people pushing the same shaky concepts day after day as if they were accepted fact and already working as advertised.  Or maybe they just don’t know any better.  My fear is the more that stuff sits out there unchallenged, the more it gets accepted, maybe even unconsciously, as “well, everybody knows THAT” fact (I already see that happening) with potentially disastrous results for both people and dogs.

Feeling good or wanting to do good are simply not enough.  We need to be absolutely sure that what we do is really helping and not actually making things worse and placing people or dogs at risk.

My plan is to start writing much shorter posts more often, stop sitting on stuff and just get it out there. The trick will be to not turn this into one big rant site (we have more than enough of those already) without going the other way and “chugging on over to namby-pamby land” like R. Lee Ermey says in that hilarious Geico commercial, either.

Guess I shouldn’t worry, though.  Never fails that every time I wrestle with something like this and then give in and say something, I’ll hear from at least one of my friends with a service dog who will tell me they’ve seen exactly the same thing and thank me for saying it.  That means the world to me – they live it 24/7/365,  I don’t, and they are ultimately why all of us involved in this world do what we do.

We’ll see how it goes.

Jul 15, 2010

Pit Bulls As Service Dogs? Why?

Al Service Dogs

Not the first time I’ve addressed this one, but it comes up again this week because of this article Monday in the Miami Herald:

Patient Luis Medina at Hialeah Hospital gets a visit from Ruby, a pit bull therapy dog. With them, left, is Dr. Reinaldo Carvajal.

“Service or menace? Pit bulls skirt law by being used as service dogs”

Let’s just bypass the “scam” angle and assume for the moment this isn’t being done just to get around the ban and these really are service dogs.

I’ve heard probably all the discussion about using non-traditional breeds as service dogs.  A lotta times that consists of someone saying something like this (and in the snottiest or snarkiest tone you can imagine): “Well, it’s not just Labradors or Golden Retrievers that can be service dogs.”

That’s true. But, beyond the excellent reasons for using Labs or Goldens (here’s a hint: “Retriever”), life is already hard enough for someone who truly needs a service dog – why make it any harder by using a pit bull?

If someone needs a service dog, they generally already have enough to deal with – a serious physical disability, for example. Adding a service dog, as wonderful as they are and as much benefit as they offer, brings on more responsibilities – a service dog team is just that, a team. Why in the world make it any tougher than it is already by using a controversial breed?

Look, I’ve met some nice pit bulls, I’m definitely not a fan of Breed Specific Legislation, and I’m convinced most dog problems are really their human’s problems. Although, that’s easy for me to say – hafta admit if I was the parent of this 6-year-old little girl who just had her face badly torn up by a pit here in Colorado Springs the very same day this article came out, I might not be so calm and rational about it: “Girl maimed by pit bull coming to terms with appearance”

Thing is, though, we can argue all day long about whether pits have an undeserved reputation or not, but the reality is if you use one as a service dog, you are automatically adding to the stuff the human partner has to deal with. Period – no way around it.

Again, there’s nothing that says you can’t do that, BUT it’s like everything else with a service dog, and that’s really the point I want to make here.  The focus has to be on making a life-changing, lifelong improvement for the person receiving the dog, and everything – EVERYTHING – has to be evaluated in that light. And the question you have to ask yourself or an organization is “What’s the priority here?”  Is it rescuing pit bulls, or a crusade to prove they aren’t bad dogs, or (fill in the blank), OR making that truly life-changing improvement in someone’s life?

And the answer is not “both”.  It’s like that old thing about how “you only get one thing in the box – what’s it gonna be?”

Well, what’s it gonna be?

Patient Luis Medina at Hialeah Hospital gets a visit from Ruby, a pit bull therapy dog. With them, left, is Dr. Reinaldo Carvajal. CHRIS CUTRO/FREELANCE

Jul 13, 2010

“He Makes Me Cry A Lot, Because I’m So Grateful For Him”

Al , , Service Dogs

Those are the emotional words of Canine Companions for Independence graduate Kelly Bussio describing her service dog Tadaki in this new video from Salt Lake City station KSL-TV yesterday.

ZD YouTube FLV Player

“Amazing dog services Salt Lake paraplegic”

Beyond the obvious emotional story, the video does a great job showing many of the skills of a properly trained service dog, in particular pulling someone in a manual wheelchair, an often misunderstood but very important function for some.

I am well aware that many are not comfortable with dogs pulling someone in a chair. Although, to my surprise, I just noticed the other day that probably the most promoted veterans-only service dog organization specifically says right at the top of their application in italicized print “It is (our) policy that our dogs do not pull a manual wheelchair.” Something to very definitely consider if you’re a veteran in a manual chair with a specific need for your dog to pull you, because that organization just ruled itself out for you.

I’ve always chalked people’s dislike of this task up to misconception, but having just seen an apparently older Lab of unknown origin last week at the National Veterans Wheelchair Games in Denver straining to pull a large man in a chair, I now have a better appreciation for why some are concerned.  When trained properly, with the proper weight restrictions and health examinations, as CCI does, it can be a very safe and essential task for some.

I personally know a number of CCI graduates who make use of this function daily, and at some point I plan to write something about just why it’s so useful for them – a longer discussion for another time.

For now, though, I think seeing Tadaki and Kelly rolling through that mall says a ton all by itself.

Jul 9, 2010

“VHA’s Guide And Service Dog Program Could Not Ensure That All Qualified Veterans Received The Opportunity To Benefit From Service Dogs”

Al , Service Dogs

That quote is from this audit report published a few days ago by the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of the Inspector General, a report that confirms what many, including me, have been saying for years.

“Audit of Guide and Service Dog Program”

If you’re not aware of the long history on this subject, see these previous posts, the first of which I wrote 15 months ago after I’d already held off writing it for over a year:

“Why The VA Has Provided No Money for Service Dogs – In Their Own Words”

“Finally, The Real Story About The VA And Service Dogs For Veterans”

You really need to read the whole short 17-page report (and closely to get the whole flavor because there are some key nuances in it), but here’s the highlights (or lowlights):

  • VA only started assisting veterans with service dogs in 2008 – 6 years after it was authorized (my jaw STILL gets tight every time I think about this)
  • Since FY 2009, VA only provided financial support for 8 – count ‘em, 8 – service dogs as opposed to 230 guide dogs during the same period
  • “…knowledge and use of service dogs at VA medical centers was incomplete and inconsistent.”
  • VA didn’t give sufficient guidance to medical center staff to ensure consistent decisions on requests for service dogs or make their staff fully aware of the benefits and the application process for them
  • “…prior to 2008, VHA’s guidance to VA medical center personnel was to deny requests for service dog benefits. Since 2008, VHA’s guidance has been to use service dogs after considering other options.”
  • VA says they haven’t seen a big demand for dogs, but the IG says “the number of veterans who obtained service dogs outside VHA demonstrates a demand exists that VHA needs to address.”

So what’s it all mean?

First, the report doesn’t come right out and say this, but it effectively confirms that there are a lotta people already in the VA system who should’ve been getting benefits paid for their routine service dog expenses and haven’t been. That’s why pretty much everybody in the VA system who has a service dog needs to reapply for that approval – I’ve already written about that here:

“Veterans With Service Dogs Are Now Eligible For VA Benefits, But May Need To Reapply”

Second, VA is on the hook to implement a new program (which includes dogs for those suffering from mental impairments) that was part of legislation passed last year and where VA will be paying for some dogs. The report said they are on track, but there are some important deadlines coming up in the next few weeks.

Third, the report mentioned the increased outreach by VA but said it hadn’t been effective. Interesting that the IG didn’t make a recommendation about increasing or improving that outreach, particularly given that the VA is currently actively working on a program to do just that, but has still not yet completed it.

Fourth, and the biggest one to watch, the draft regulation outlining VA’s service dog policy is in their “normal  2-year  review  process” and is supposed to be final in July 2011.  (2 years is “normal”?? I knew there was a review process, but I had no idea – no wonder we have problems.  That means if you start working on something right now, by default you are already automatically two years behind – unbelievable.)  In addition, and this is key:

“A directive to define policy for the issuance of service dogs to eligible veterans with mobility or hearing impairments; outline the benefits covered by VHA related to obtaining  and  funding  training,  veterinary care, and hardware; and set specific criteria to exercise this authority is also being prepared. This directive will match the regulations and will be issued immediately after the regulations are published.

In the interim, by October 2010 VHA will develop guidance on clinical criteria to determine whether a veteran will benefit from a service dog trained for the aid of the hearing impaired or trained for the aid of persons with spinal cord injury or dysfunction or other chronic impairment that substantially limits mobility to veterans with such injury, dysfunction, or impairment.”

Now, with all that said and for all my moaning about this subject, I’ll still go back to what I’ve said all along.  I don’t think the government is the solution to this problem, and this situation is the perfect example of why, for what should be very obvious reasons. It’s gonna take education (“If You Want More Service Dogs for Veterans, First You Have to Get More Veterans Who Want Service Dogs”) and private effort and money to get it done.

Even with the new legislation this will still be true.  While authorizing an additional 200 dogs and paying $10K towards the cost of each one is nice, first, properly training an additional 200 dogs is a major effort you don’t just snap your fingers and make happen and, second, $10K doesn’t come anywhere near what it costs to properly train each dog and support its placement, a lifelong commitment.

That doesn’t mean I’m not happy to see VA finally get pressed to do what they should’ve been doing all along, though – I am.  Or that the VA shouldn’t step up and fulfill its responsibilities.  But the question, as always with me, is: will this mean that more veterans get more of the best service dogs? (The key word being “best’ – we have plenty of half…”way” “service dogs” already).  The jury’s still out on that one.

Lemme also say something else I’ve said before. I know there are many people working at VA, including some that I know personally, who I have no doubt are “good guys” and are trying to help.  I know it’s gotta be tough to be working at the VA these days, and I wanna thank you for sticking it out and trying to make things better under those conditions.

Let’s hope we’re done with this kinda stuff and can move forward in a lot more positive way from now on.