Americans with Disablities Act

Mar 24, 2011

“It’s Stinky. It’s Dirty. It’s A Dog. This Is A Restaurant.”

Al , Service Dogs

This is one of those “I figure everybody’s already seen it, so why post it” ones, but that’s because everybody that I know has seen it, and I have to remember that doesn’t mean most people have.

Last Friday night, ABC’s “What Would You Do?”, a show “that uses actors and hidden cameras to create compelling dilemmas – and then captures how people react” as they describe themselves, ran a segment with this scenario:

“What would you do if you were in a restaurant and heard the manager tell a disabled woman that she was not permitted to dine with her dog by her side? We set up hidden cameras at Alfonso’s Trattoria in Somerville, N.J., to see how people would react to a disabled person and her service dog facing discrimination. Our actors play a couple who complain about the dog, a complacent manager, a woman who is in the early stages of multiple sclerosis, and Hercules, a trained service dog. Would anyone come to the rescue of our canine and his companion?”

Hercules is a Canine Companions for Independence dog currently in professional training at the Northeast Regional Center on Long Island, and I’m lucky to know his deservedly proud Puppy Raiser, Emily Bracken.

I had the pleasure of watching this segment at the Oklahoma City VA Medical Center Friday night with a number of CCI people, including three graduates – Dawn Ramsey, Jason Morgan, and Nancy Patterson – all of whom (like every CCI graduate I know) have experienced things like those shown in the video, and so they really enjoyed watching it.  In fact, the reaction among CCI people I know around the country has been universally positive, which is a tough trick to accomplish (and I’m the worst of the bunch and toughest to please on that one).

Watch for yourself (As an aside, note how well Hercules behaves, too, and remember – he’s still IN TRAINING and still acts much better in public than many “service dogs” you will see.):

“Disabled Woman’s Dog Dilemma”

Jan 20, 2011

Just A Preview Of Things To Come With The New ADA Service Animal Revisions

Al Service Dogs

Fresh from The Oregonian yesterday. May sound like a joke, but, trust me, it’s not:


“No more ‘service snakes’ on TriMet. But what about guide horses? Saddle up, Portland”

This one’s a classic example of what I always wanna point people to when, often with their noses in the air, they very confidently say, “Well, the law is clear…”

Really? You mean like this paragraph from the revised ADA?

“The miniature horse is not included in the definition of service animal, which is limited to dogs. However, the Department has added a specific provision at Sec.36.302(c)(9) of the final rule covering miniature horses. Under this provision, public accommodations must make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability. The public accommodation may take into account a series of assessment factors in determining whether to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility. These include the type, size, and weight of the miniature horse, whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse, whether the miniature horse is housebroken, and whether the miniature horse’s presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation. In addition, paragraphs (c)(3)B-(8) of this section, which are applicable to dogs, also apply to miniature horses.”

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-21821.htm

Yeah, real clear. Sounds like a service animal in everything but name to me.

But horses, miniature or otherwise, aren’t the problem, anyway, and I don’t see us being inundated with them anytime soon. And, honestly, I might just as soon take my chances with them as some of the service DOGS out there. I heard another story just today about a service dog from a very recognizable organization lunging at a friend’s CCI puppy in training this morning (give you a hint: they don’t believe in physically correcting dogs, e.g., jerking on their leashes).

Nope, the problem isn’t horses, or snakes, or iguanas, or monkeys, or any of the other animals the revisions have done away with. Oh, I’m glad they did that, and it’s definitely appropriate, but it’s not gonna have any big positive impact on the service dog world.

No, what bugs me more than anything else about the ADA revisions is this continuing drumbeat that they’ve made things better and tightened things up when actually the opposite is true – they make things worse. That’s because DOJ tightened things up at the margins – snakes, monkeys, and so on – that aren’t really the big problem, but loosened them up in the middle – dogs – that ARE, and where they really needed to do the tightening.

Unfortunately, I think that one’s gonna come back to bite us, and we haven’t even begun to see the multitude of service dog issues that will result from it.

Jan 11, 2011

A Service Dog IN HEAT? You Gotta Be Kidding Me

Al , , , Service Dogs

Apparently not: “Once-Banned Service Dog in Heat, Not in School”

Oy, yoy, yoy – you cannot be serious. You mean after all the hoopla about this dog, and this kid’s story, that they are using an intact female as a service dog? Please tell me they got this story wrong (trust me, I’ll let you know).  If they didn’t and this is true… there are a lotta people with some serious ‘splainin’ to do, starting with the family, the place they got the dog from at a cost of $20,000 (Seizure Alert Dogs for Life), and NBC.

I’ve very intentionally left this story alone until now, even though I saw it well ahead of all the hoopla, because, as I’ve mentioned many times here, first off, it’s generally not the kind of story I write about. For one thing, children taking service dogs into public schools is a far more complex legal subject than clearly most people realize (whether it should be or not, that’s how it is – ask most anybody who’s been involved in one of those cases), and surely not my area of expertise.

Really, though, it’s more because every time one of these deals comes up (which is pretty regularly), I get inundated with posts and tweets from the “outraged masses”, most of whom know even less about that subject than I do, but who are irate nonetheless (“OMG! How can they do this! This is so wrong!”). I get tired of it very quickly, there are already plenty of people writing about it, and there’s really nothing I can add (not that most of them would wanna hear, anyway).

Nowhere has that been more true than this story, with many of those same people “declaring victory” when the story made The Today Show and the dog was allowed into the school on a trial basis.

Well, I don’t know what they are all gonna say now – sure haven’t seen anywhere near the reaction from them to this news, but if it’s true, it’s not just some funny sidelight. It’s a very serious issue, and puts a whole new light on things, and I hope they realize that.

Me? I’m incredulous. My jaw dropped and I was actually speechless when I first saw this, because it is such a known, basic, “Service Dogs 101″ thing that I can’t imagine this happening.

Sure, there’s nothing in the ADA or any other law I know of that says you can’t do it, but it is obvious why you wouldn’t use an intact female as a service dog, right?

Just in case it’s not, let’s start with basic sanitary issues. Then there’s the idea of a dog in heat working in public where there are intact males. But the real question is, why is she even still intact in the first place? What were they planning on doing – breeding her? Taking her “out of service” for a few months at least once a year? Didn’t we just go through a big emotional thing about how this dog needed to be by this child’s side constantly?

Just makes no sense for this dog to be intact, and there are a lotta questions to be answered here, particularly since they paid $20,000 to a service dog place questions were already being raised about. Did they knowingly sell this family an intact female dog? If so, that is simply irresponsible, even if the family asked them to do it. And how would the organization not know the dog was intact? And if this was somehow just some kinda awful mistake, are they now gonna spay the dog? And on and on… just doesn’t add up for me no matter how hard I try.

All of this is why responsible service dog organizations don’t do things like this. Take Canine Companions for Independence, for example, who breeds all of its own dogs. All CCI dogs (male OR female) who graduate as assistance dogs, as well as those released from training, are neutered or spayed. Period. Only dogs selected as breeders remain intact, and they are removed from training when that selection is made and assigned to the breeding program – they will not work as assistance dogs.

I’m anxiously awaiting those answers and others, but, bottom line, this changes this whole story. Maybe not the legal end or this child’s needs, but certainly the coverage, particularly all the discussion about service dog quality and where you get them.

Let’s hope that all those who raised such a fuss about this to educate the public about children being able to have service dogs in public schools now spend as much time educating everybody about why you don’t use an intact female (or male, for that matter) as a service dog, the importance of going to recognized organizations, and so on.

I’ll believe it when I see it.

Dec 9, 2010

Get Serious Or Stay Home

Al , , , , , Service Dogs, Veterans

Get Serious Or Stay Home

If you want to be involved in the service dog world, one of the first things you better understand right up front is that it’s a serious business. And if you can’t do that, please – find something else to be involved in.

Sure, you do it because you love it, it’s a great thing, a lotta fun, very worthwhile and meaningful.  But you gotta use your head and not let your heart override it, and that means making some decisions and doing some things that aren’t so much fun sometimes, and it can be tough – REAL tough.

Best analogy or comparison I can give you is flying. I spent a big part of my Air Force career as an aircrew member linguist flying around in the back of airplanes in the not always so friendly skies. More to the point, a large portion of my close friends are pilots. Every single one of them loves it, will tell you it’s their life, has a lotta fun doing it, but also knows they have to be very serious about it, because if you’re not, people die. At the same time, if all you did was focus on the serious stuff, you wouldn’t do it, so they have all developed the necessary balance between the fun and serious parts.

Can’t think of any better example there than this short video of an Air Force Thunderbird crash in Idaho seven years ago:



If a Tbird pilot can make what’s a rookie mistake – miscalculate his altitude so that he started a routine loop back toward the ground 800 feet lower than he should’ve  – it could happen to anybody.

Now I’m not gonna tell you that people or dogs will necessarily die in the service dog world (although it is certainly possible and does happen) because of human mistakes, but you can seriously screw up somebody’s life if you get things wrong, not to mention the overall negative effect you can have on the entire service dog community, and you better be very clear about that.

And yet I see stories every day where people never got that in the first place or have forgotten it somewhere along the way. Well-meaning people who really want to help, but you can tell from the things they say and the stuff they do that they’ve lost their focus, let their hearts get the best of their heads, and forgotten what the goal is. It’s not just people new to the game, either – I see it happening with people who’ve been around for many years and oughtta know better as well.

How do you know if that’s happening to you? Well, if you find yourself doing or saying any of these things, you better take a real hard look in the mirror and ask yourself just what it is you’re really trying to accomplish and why you’re in this world.  These are all things I’ve seen said and or done by people involved with service dog training in just the last few months.

“It makes me FEEL really GOOD inside, that’s why I do it. I just enjoy watching other people FEEL GOOD and that makes me FEEL GOOD.” (my capitalization)

Notice a pattern there?  All swell and wonderful, but lemme give you a clue – it’s not about whether you or I – or even the person getting the dog, for that matter – “feels good”.

“The people who have used pit bulls as service dogs generally won’t go for any other breed.”

Huh? Notwithstanding whether the breed is even appropriate for the specific tasks someone needs (e.g., pulling a manual wheelchair) or any of the legal stuff going on, if people in wheelchairs with Goldens and Labs get unfairly hassled in public access areas all the time, how much more problem do you think, say, somebody with a controversial breed like a pit is likely gonna have, especially if the person has no visible physical injuries? No way am I saying that’s right, but it’s the reality, and if you choose to train pits for them in spite of it, you better recheck your priorities, and fast.

“In another training method designed for soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress, dogs are taught to mark a 3-foot space around someone by walking in a leashed circle, clearing people away who might be crowding the individual. “

C’mon, you can’t be serious. I can’t see how you possibly could be considering, among other things, the ramifications of something like that on the entire service dog community (more on that in a later post), and I think maybe you’ve let the emotions of seeing a veteran who’s dealing with post-traumatic stress get to you (that’s not some abstract discussion for me, either – again, more to follow).  (This one is particularly disappointing to me, because, unlike the majority of these deals, it’s being done by a place that, up to now, has had a pretty good rep.)

“The average pet can often be transformed into a highly effective service animal if the family is willing to institute the structure necessary for success in the program.”

Not sure how you define “often”, but…yeah, sure. That’s why Canine Companions for Independence, for example, goes to the trouble to breed all their dogs, train them for two years, and still only graduates 30-40% of them. Please.  That, by the way, is the epitome of being serious, and talk about making decisions you don’t want to make (i.e., releasing dogs from training), but that you know are for the good of everybody concerned, including the dog.

And, last, this doozy:

“The dog’s a companion, but also in a sense, the dog’s a weapon…”

WHAT?????!!!!!?????

That’s enough for now, I could go on all day. Trust me that these are not a few selective quotes taken outta context to make my point, either. I have a real sensitivity to that kinda thing – matter of fact, I just saw the definitive example of that when it was done to a good CCI veteran grad friend of mine in a national news magazine article about service dogs in only the last couple weeks.

Bottom line is this. We already have more “half fast” service dogs out there than we need, and surely do not need any more. But that’s exactly where we’re headed if this nonsense keeps up.

And the real irony here is that a number of the people saying these things are combat veterans, who’ve been through many life-or-death situations, so they sure understand “serious”, but, based on what they’re saying, don’t have a clue when it comes to training service dogs.

Please – do everybody a favor.  Get your head on straight here, and if you can’t do that, get outta the game before somebody gets hurt.

Nov 26, 2010

Guess What The Most Popular Breed Of “Service Dog” Will Be In Denver And Aurora Next Year

Al , Service Dogs, Veterans

Guess What The Most Popular Breed Of “Service Dog” Will Be In Denver And Aurora Next Year

If some people get their way, that is.

I’m no fan of Breed Specific Legislation (and I’ve already talked about why using pits as service dogs is a bad idea, legal or not), but I’m also no fan of organizations who don’t care a whit about the ADA, people with disabilities, veterans, or service dogs, but will use ANYTHING to try and end or circumvent BSL.

Which is exactly what’s going on in Denver and Aurora, Colorado right now:

“Vet wins dogged fight to keep pit bull as service dog”

“(Precious) is a happy dog. She hates to see me sad.” Gimme a break. Wanna show me that one on the ADA task list?: “Revised ADA Regulations Implementing Title II and Title III”

Look, trust me, I feel for this guy, but this is not the answer.  And, ban or not, based on the description, Precious is a pet.  A great one, no doubt, but still a pet.  So even if they create an exemption, I don’t see how she qualifies.

To me, it’s simple – make a decision. If you’re gonna end the ban, end it. Or don’t. But don’t fall for all these bogus “service dogs”, no matter how touching the stories are.

Hey, if the stories bother you that much, then just end the ban, don’t further damage the whole service dog concept.  It’s already been weakened and gets more so every day, partly because of stuff just like this, but I swear there are some people who won’t be happy until the whole concept is destroyed entirely, just as long as they get what THEY want.

And that’s what will happen in Denver and Aurora, just like it has elsewhere.  People will say, “If my choice  is that I have to lie and say my dog is a service dog or it dies, then I’m gonna lie.”

So, all of you out there who love to repost these stories and rant and gloat every time the subject of pits and defeating or circumventing BSL comes up, please – wake up.  Using service dogs, the ADA, and disabled veterans to accomplish that is flat wrong and comes at others’ expense, most notably those with legitimate service dogs.

Nov 24, 2010

As Usual, Nobody Wins But The Lawyers

Al Service Dogs

As Usual, Nobody Wins But The Lawyers

I very intentionally don’t post all the latest service dog legal battle stories here, which usually take the form of the “outraged masses” ranting about a child somewhere being “denied their dog at school” and get reposted plenty of places already.

The first thing people need to understand is that service dogs in schools is a whole different deal and not as simple as everybody thinks it is. Maybe it should be, but it isn’t, and I don’t have to be an ADA attorney to understand that – I’ve had enough discussions with people who’ve been involved in those situations.

Without getting into all that, there’s one key thing I want you to take from this latest story from Florida making the rounds (“Bone to pick: Parent upset autistic child can’t use service dog in Collier school“).

Note these two short sentences from an editorial (“Brent Batten: Can dogged determination overcome school district access policy?“) about Bill Hughes, who fought the same battle with the same school district for four years, appeared to have won, but finally gave up and moved to Pennsylvania:

“Earlier this year, he settled with the district for $125,000, all of which went to pay his attorneys fees. The district admitted no wrongdoing and Hughes agreed never to try to enroll his son in Collier County schools.”

Classic example of why I say all the time that the service animal part of the ADA is not working, and the only people who ever really win when you go to court are the lawyers.

Sep 7, 2010

Cesar’s Way Wrong About Service Dogs: Part 4 – Registries

Al , , Service Dogs

I’ve been writing about Cesar Millan’s recent “Junior gets his Service Dog certification!” post the last few days, including how it was so wrong,  a classic example of misplaced priorities, and didn’t address the law.  The page that started this has been taken down, but there’s a cached version here, and you can also click on the photo for a larger screen capture image of the article.

Next up, service dog registries, but first, here’s a very pertinent late breaking update. Yesterday I found this response from United States Service Dog Registry, whose “documentation package”  is in that picture, to a comment on their Facebook page – pretty obscure place for a pretty significant announcement, honestly (my italics below):

“Friends of the United States Service Dog Registry: Hi Emily, thanks for you question. We’ve been in touch with Cesar’s assistant and the writer of this story. The writer of this story is not knowledgeable about Service Dogs and made several errors and omissions in her post. This blog also went live before Cesar could review it. The writer was also reticent to mention Cesar’s disability out of concern for his privacy. She has taken the blog down due to the holiday weekend and until she can meet with Cesar. We will post more information as soon as we have it.”

That’s huge news if Cesar has a disability (and I also have to say it seems USSDR doesn’t share the same concern about Cesar’s privacy if they would post that), since, as I said in my last post, I’ve never seen that mentioned before. No question I’m very much awaiting official clarification, but let’s be very clear – even if that’s accurate, it doesn’t change the fact there are still big problems here, one of which is using a service dog registry.

I’ve been following this subject for several years and have just ducked talking about it here because, frankly, I see so much bad stuff daily where service dogs are concerned I get tired of talking about it all. So I’m very familiar with USSDR, even though I’ve intentionally never mentioned them here.  They are certainly not the worst of the bunch, and if you didn’t know better about the whole registry concept and just went by their posts about service dog access issues everywhere, you’d think they were great.

Here’s what you need to know, and let’s just say this right up front:

Service dog registries’ documentation, IDs, tags, patches, and so on are basically worthless. They have no legal standing and are completely meaningless when it comes to determining if a dog is really a service dog.

Hey, USSDR even tells you that, although not in those words, of course. You can wade through all the legalese on their site (and, trust me, there’s plenty – just click on that Terms and Conditions link), but these two excerpts from their About Us page are what count:

Registrant data is based on assertions by the dog owners. The USSDR can not confirm or certify information provided by the registrants. Service Dog certification is not required by the ADA law. Use of this website, your 10 Digit ID Code, any items from our Archival Documentation Package, cards you make up for yourself are subject to our full Terms and Conditions. Please note that misrepresenting any animal as a Service or Assistance Animal (in any way, either by simply verbally claiming an animal is a service animal, wearing a Service Animal vest or cape, using a special harness, leash, tags or by any other means—including using this Registry) is a crime and may be punishable by law. See our Terms and Conditions for details.

The United States Service Dog Registry is not a certification process and Registrant data is based solely on the assertions of the dog owner. Registrants accept full responsibility for the accuracy of their information, their own conduct and the conduct of their animals. Please read our Terms and Conditions. We provide no benefits or protection for our Registrants, legal or otherwise. Protection and benefits are granted by the ADA and local governments.

See what I mean?

The problem is there’s a fundamental disconnect here. I don’t see how you can say you support the ADA and sell these materials – it’s that simple. You can be well-meaning, cover yourself legally every way from Sunday, dance things around any way you want, but it still comes up the same way.

And the bottom line is still this – if you got fifty bucks and fill out their application, you can have the same stuff you see with Cesar and Junior:

http://www.usservicedogregistry.org/shop.php

Let’s be serious – if  someone who doesn’t know better (which is pretty much everybody) sees a dog with that stuff, do you have any doubt that they think it’s something official that says the dog is a service dog? And they aren’t gonna be looking for all that legalese and disclaimers on a web page – all they know is what they see.

Happens all the time.  I can’t tell you how many news stories or blog posts I see that go something like this: “Even though Lassie had on her vest and service dog ID, she and Billy weren’t allowed in the store.” as if that had any legal standing and then go on to rant about how that’s a violation of the ADA.

This video from last year is a classic example. The veteran in it may very well have a perfectly legitimate beef with the bus line, but, unfortunately, both he and the reporter have shown they aren’t clear on the law when they talk about how the dog “even has identification” and show a closeup of her ID card:

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2009/10/21/fl.service.dog.trouble.wsvn.html

(Note that particular ID is from registeredservicedogs.com which may have gone out of business since their page comes up as a suspended account, but you can see what it used to look like here.)

That’s the fundamental problem with these registries – they skirt the line and effectively say “We’ll sell you all this great official-looking stuff that allows you to ID your dog as a service dog, but it isn’t official and we take no responsibility if you use it that way.” I guess the concept is you can’t fake something that doesn’t actually exist in the first place, I don’t know.

The larger subject, and one for another time since this is way too long already, is that this is all an outgrowth of the DOJ decision to not only not require any identification for service animals, but not even create one in the first place. One of the end results is that even people with legitimate service dogs buy this stuff because they’re desperate for anything that might keep them from getting hassled.

So what do I wanna see happen and what can we do here?

Well, I’d just as soon see all these registry places go away. I don’t know that it’s appropriate to outlaw them, I’m not a fan of doing business like that, and don’t know that you could, anyway. And even if you did, it would still take time and effort.

But what you CAN do and right now is this: don’t buy anything from these places, don’t promote them, don’t retweet their tweets, don’t share their posted links on Facebook, don’t give their products any recognized status when you see them on a dog – nothing. It’s like so many other things – you might not be able to put an end to them or may not even want to, but you don’t have to support them, either.

Beyond that, I think it’s long past time to resurface the idea of a standardized national ID.

Next: I plan to wait for some kind of official statement from Cesar or his staff before writing any more in this series.

Sep 6, 2010

Cesar’s Way Wrong About Service Dogs: Part 3 – The Law

Al , , Service Dogs

So far in my series about Cesar Millan’s recent “Junior gets his Service Dog certification!” post, I’ve talked about how it was so wrong and how it’s a classic example of misplaced priorities.  Please review those if you haven’t read them already.  And, again, the page that started this controversy has been taken down, but you can read a cached version here, and you can click on the photo for a larger screen capture image of the article as well.

Next let’s talk about the law, or, more appropriately, Cesar’s apparent ignorance of it.

Now, if you’ve been here more than once, you know it’s no secret I’m not a big fan of the law or looking for legislative solutions to problems in general, and more specifically where service dogs are concerned.  It’s also way too easy to get into a complex and arcane legal discussion, courts have gone both ways in their rulings, I’m not an attorney, and chances are neither are you. So I like to keep things as simple as possible in this area, and that’s easy to do in this case.

For all the legal complexities, there are only a couple things you need to know here.  First, as I said in “When You Hear ‘Service Dog’, Think “Public Access’“:

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.”

So, if Cesar says Junior is a service dog, the clear implication is that he intends to take Junior into public access areas. Because otherwise there’s no need to say that.

It follows then that, second, Cesar and Junior need to meet the public access requirements, and, in that regard, what I said in “Bet You Have No Idea Just How Low The Bar Is To Say Your Dog Is A Service Dog” applies.  You can read that post for more details, including the pertinent section of the newly revised ADA, but here’s the key point:

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?

Did you see that addressed anywhere in Cesar’s post? In fact, I’ll even give him the benefit of the doubt since that post has been pulled, apparently because of the way it was written – have you EVER seen any indication ANYWHERE that he understands this concept? I didn’t, and I never have.

Nothing there about what Junior does for him, or even for other people with disabilities, either. For example, medical professionals with service dogs that were not trained for them, but for use with their patients with disabilities (e.g., Canine Companions for Independence Facility Dogs), have public access when they take the dog and those patients out into public access areas, the concept being the dog is required because of the patients’ disabilities and performs functions for them.

Nope, none of that.  Just a “hey, look at me and my great service dog Junior and how cool is that” picture with a really flaky explanation lacking any real substance.

On top of that, the real proof for me that Cesar doesn’t get it here is what got this controversy started in the first place – his use of a service dog registry.  Remember, as I said at the outset, this is not about Cesar, the issues go way beyond him, and service dog registries are a prime example.  And let’s be very clear here – even if  someone has a disability and a legitimate service dog, service dog registries and their meaningless documentation, patches, tags,  ID cards, and so on are still a bad thing.

More on that subject in my next post – it’s one I’ve let go for far too long.  We’re long past the point where the lid needs to be blown off those places, and this may be the incident that finally does that.

Next: Part 4 – Registries

Sep 2, 2010

Why Pretending Your Pet Is A Service Dog Is So Wrong

Al Service Dogs

I haven’t seen anybody address the subject of why pretending your pet is a service dog is so wrong and the damage that it causes better than Casey Lomonaco does in “My Thoughts on “Fake” Service Dogs”.

Really nothing else I need to say here – just go read the whole thing (it’s not that long) and give the link to anybody you think might be “unclear on the concept”.

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.

1 2