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.

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.

“Federal judge rejects Ryderwood woman’s service dog discrimination suit”

Haven’t heard much about this case, either, even though it’s been going on for over a year, but I can’t say I’m surprised – it’s exactly the opposite of those “service dog discrimination” stories the “outraged public” waits around to pounce on and be outraged about all the time.

My guess is you also won’t be hearing a lot about it being tossed now, which is exactly why I wanted to write about it here.

Big points to Judge Stephen Warning for standing up on this one. You can read the links below for more details, but here’s the heart of the matter:

“I was told by security that her dog smelled so bad that people were having to get up and leave the courtroom,” Warning said.

When he asked Brown what service the dog performs, he said, the situation became “laughable.”

“She said, ‘Well, she pulls me.’ … As she’s facing me, the dog’s trying to pull her in another direction. It was clear the dog was not trained to assist her in any way.”

Warning said he of all people would be especially forgiving of a service animal in his court. He and his wife have trained three seeing-eye dogs, one of which was sleeping at his feet when the incident unfolded.

And the real bottom line:

“Unfortunately a lot of people abuse the provisions of the ADA in order to keep their pets with them at all times and that makes it difficult and is one of the biggest problems legitimate service dog users and service dog organizations have,” [Judge Warning] said.

Amen.

“Two women take on county over service animal policies”

“County faces federal suit over service animal policy”

“Pink poodle, owner get apology from Denny’s”

Yeah, maybe the dog is legit, and, yeah, service dogs come in all shapes and sizes, and, no, the ADA doesn’t say you can’t have a poodle and dye it pink.

But, seriously, c’mon – we gotta be smarter than this.

Remember this one next time somebody starts giving you the lecture about how there’s really no problem on the service dog end of the public access issue and it’s all businesses’ fault.

There is one story, though, that, while not a good one, definitely got my attention and I wanna talk about because no one else seems to be. It’s been 11 days since I first saw it on October 30th, and there’s still no reaction on major news services, Twitter, or blogs, which, given that I routinely see all three erupt over much, much less serious service dog incidents than this one, really strikes me as odd.

Here’s the story, buried in the Courthouse News Service – read it for yourself:

“Iraq Vet Says McDonald’s Workers Beat Him“

Luis Montalvan, Sen Al Franken, and Tuesday.

So let’s review:

• Highly visible OEF/OIF wounded warrior – ‘poster guy’ for Puppies Behind Bars, been to the inauguration, Sen Franken says this is the guy who inspired him to write his recently passed service dog legislation, been featured on many news stories, including this one in the Wall Street Journal in July that got loads of attention: “‘Sit! Stay! Snuggle!’: An Iraq Vet Finds His Dog Tuesday”

• Biggest fast food chain on the planet, McDonald’s.

• Happened right in New York City (Brooklyn).

• Physical attack with garbage can lids that resulted in a significant injury.

Add all that up, and it’s clearly a huge story. And that’s true whether it turns out to be accurate or not, which is the point I want to make here.

Obviously, it’s a major story if it’s true, and, if so, my gut reaction is somebody needs to get hammered, bigtime. My standard ‘I’m not an attorney’ disclaimer applies, but those are some very serious accusations, and I don’t think you have to be a lawyer to see a big bucks civil action settlement, a lotta bad press for McDonald’s, and maybe additional criminal charges coming.

What’s not so obvious is that it’s still a huge story even if things didn’t happen this way – the story doesn’t just go away. There are a lotta serious questions that would need to be answered including, depending on the circumstances, ones about this particular dog placement, the screening and training process associated with that placement, and the overall concept in general of placements specifically for those with post-traumatic stress as their primary issue.

Let me be very clear – as a retired Air Force Chief Master Sergeant who has nothing but the utmost respect for all these young servicemembers today who have to deal with lots more stuff than I ever did, I’m the last guy in the world to say anything disrespectful about them, and I am not doing that here. That does not, however, remove the need to ask some hard questions and be extremely careful, particularly where we are placing assistance dogs into the mix.

Let me also be very clear that I’m not saying that things didn’t happen exactly the way Luis Montalvan says they happened. I wasn’t there and have no inside information or any other reason to believe they didn’t.

What I AM saying is, either way, this story deserves a lot more of all of our attention than it’s getting and cannot be ignored the way it seems to be getting ignored. If it’s true, I expect some serious action to be taken, and if it isn’t, I also expect some serious action – it doesn’t just vanish in one of those Emily Litella “never mind” moments I’ve written about.

Please keep your eye on this one – I know I will be.

In case you don’t, she was a fantastic Gilda Radner character on Saturday Night Live some 30 years ago now (a show which, BTW, in all the years since has never come remotely close to the level of talent and associated comedy back then) whose trademark was to always get confused about a story, start going off with the classic moral indignation, then find out she had it all wrong, and look at the camera and slowly say “Oh…never mind!”  If you have a minute, this video is a classic example:

We could definitely use a lot more of that Emily approach in the world in general, and in the service dog world in particular.  Unfortunately, all we normally get is the initial righteous indignation without the “Oh…never mind” followup when things turn out to be not what they appeared at first.

Never fails that every time a story breaks where there’s apparent discrimination against someone with a service dog, the Twitterverse and Blogosphere erupt. Post after post, tweet after retweet, day and night, all full of moral outrage about the evil school district, or clueless zoo, or whatever. (Matter of fact, there’s another one of these cases and  associated eruptions going on right this minute – sheesh, when ISN’T there one going on?)

But where are those same people when things turn out to not have been what they seemed at first? Nowhere to be found, that’s where.

Recent case in point…

You may remember the story about Stephen Bottila, a guy with what he says is a seizure alert dog in Madison, Wisconsin who was Tasered, pepper sprayed, and arrested when he refused to leave a McDonald’s. I wrote about it here: “Do You Really Think The ADA Is Working When It Comes To Service Dogs?”

As I said there, that story got a lot of attention – I can’t even count how many tweets and posts I saw, mostly moaning about how awful the cops and city were and how they were depriving this guy of his lawful rights.

Well, Mr. Bottila already had filed a complaint with the Madison Equal Opportunity Commission and a lawsuit in federal court over previous incidents, and the results are in.

On Wed, Aug 5th, the Madison Equal Opportunity Commission dismissed the complaint:

“City panel dismisses man’s service-dog complaint; federal lawsuit still on”

Five days later, on Mon, Aug 10th, the federal lawsuit was also dismissed, and after only one day in court:

“Judge dismisses man’s service dog lawsuit against Madison police”

Now for all I know this could be reversed on appeal, and maybe the fact that they have ruled the dog is not a service dog won’t affect the later case. And, no question, the law is definitely not working when things deteriorate to this level. But, regardless of how things end up or what someone’s personal opinion of this situation is, the really obvious thing to me is that I didn’t see 10% of the noise about those decisions that I did when his most recent incident came up.

Gee, I wonder why?

I’m not for a second asking people to not be upset about someone with a service dog being unfairly treated, but I am asking two things.

First, take a deep breath when you see something like that, realize you may not know all the facts or the law as well as you think you do, and don’t mindlessly repeat the story all over the planet with all the “How dare they!” attitude that’s rampant.

Second, when the situation is resolved, regardless of the outcome, spread it around just as much as, if not more than, you did when it first happened.

Doing anything else is just… Oh…never mind.

“Madison man tussles with police over service dog”

I’ve written about this subject before (“How Do I Know If That’s Really a Service Dog?”) and, to me, this case is a classic example that the ADA is not working as currently written, things are messed up, and we need to do something different.

But forget what I think – let me just ask you…

No matter which side of this discussion you fall on or what your opinions are, does anybody out there really think that the ADA is actually working when it comes to service dogs, that things are OK like they are, and we don’t need to do anything different?

Please let me know your thoughts in the comments, especially if you are someone currently paired with a service dog.