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

Posted on | July 27, 2010 | No Comments

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.