Here’s another one I ran across while searching for something else this morning, started to read looking for that, and it hit me that the same stuff is still true a year and a half later (and it’s not all good stuff, either). It also surprised me because, while I’ve said all of this to enough people over time, I honestly didn’t remember that I’d actually written it here, too.

So, a good time to just repost it in its entirety – it was originally posted October 16, 2009.

Please take a look, because it accurately describes how things are today, particularly where service dogs and veterans are concerned.

________________________________________________________________________________

That’s what the headline and angle for this story could’ve actually been (or something like it) if someone wanted to write it that way.

The story I’m referring to is this article from The Oregonian a few days ago about Canine Companions for Independence puppies being raised at the Coffee Creek Correctional Facility for women in Wilsonville, OR:

“Future service dogs get their training by women inmates at Coffee Creek lockup”

It’s a good story, too (albeit with a few inaccuracies – for example, they aren’t “therapy dogs”), but my point is that, as I’ve said before, there are a number of service dog organizations who have puppy raising programs in prisons and place dogs with wounded veterans as well. Some definitely do a much better job of promoting themselves than others, too, but you need to be very careful not to confuse the quality of the public relations effort with the overall quality of the program.

I remain convinced that Canine Companions is the premier service dog organization in this country, and that’s why I’ve chosen to concentrate my efforts there. That surely doesn’t mean they are “the only game in town” and, in fact, contrary to what some seem to believe, they don’t want to be, either – there’s no way in the world CCI could handle the need for assistance dogs all by themselves, and they are well aware of that.

Make no mistake – while I’m a “CCI guy”, I’m for ANY service dog organization that’s doing a top-notch job of providing dogs for veterans, the key being “top-notch”, a subject I’ve addressed here many times. Let’s just say I continue to see things organizations say about themselves that, as a minimum, are a stretch, and, at worst, could be intentionally misleading.

No organization is perfect, but that’s something I’ve just never seen from Canine Companions – if anything, they don’t toot their horn enough, certainly not anywhere near as much as I’d like them to. I think I have a good idea why that is, too – as I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t speak for CCI, but I have had a close association with them for enough years now to understand some things, so I can give you an educated opinion here.

First, they are very, very sensitive to graduate privacy or, to put it more bluntly, they aren’t gonna pimp their graduates. They certainly don’t hide them – you can go to the newsletters on the website and see pictures of all the graduate teams, for example. But when you see a very public and active graduate team, that’s because they’ve chosen to be that way on their own with no pressure from CCI.

Second, there is also a great sensitivity to not pandering to what’s popular, especially where veterans are concerned. That means you won’t likely ever see CCI changing their core mission – as some service dog organizations have done without even mentioning it – from training dogs for those with severe physical disabilities to training dogs for those whose primary diagnosis is post-traumatic stress. (The irony being that post-traumatic stress will almost certainly be present in a veteran with the type of physical injuries we’re talking about, anyway.)

Unfortunately, that sensitivity has also meant Canine Companions hasn’t talked about the work they have done to incorporate post-traumatic stress into both the screening of candidates and training of dogs. For example, they long ago brought in outside post-traumatic stress experts who sat down for several days with training staff to discuss this subject in detail. Those discussions were very successful and resulted in a number of improvements in both those areas – I hope someday you’ll be hearing about that directly from CCI instead of just me.

Bottom line is that you can be confident and comfortable in what Canine Companions is doing with veterans – you just may have to work a little harder to see it. Some organizations might do a better job of promoting themselves, but no one does a better job making individually matched lifelong placements of assistance dogs.

]]> http://www.albrittain.com/service-dogs/wounded-warrior-receives-canine-companions-service-dog-raised-in-prison-program-repost/feed/ 0 http://www.albrittain.com/veterans/veteran-with-pit-bull-service-dog-lied-about-serving-in-iraq/ http://www.albrittain.com/veterans/veteran-with-pit-bull-service-dog-lied-about-serving-in-iraq/#comments Tue, 28 Dec 2010 08:03:09 +0000 Al http://www.albrittain.com/?p=9217 I didn’t write about this story before because it’s just not the kinda story I normally write about, and there are plenty of others who do every time one of these stories comes up (the “enraged masses” as I call them). Turns out they took the hook BIGTIME on this one, too. Let’s review:

• Veteran with a pit bull has that dog confiscated by the city of Fort Worth after a man said it bit him
• Veteran claims the dog is a service dog that helps him with PTSD he deals with after serving in OIF
• Crusading media jumps on the bandwagon that the veteran is being mistreated by the city
• 4400 people sign an online petition to allow him to keep the dog
• $17,000 is donated for the dog’s care

Only one BIG problem – THE GUY NEVER SERVED IN IRAQ (or anywhere else overseas, for that matter). Let’s go to the videotape:

“Army denies Fort Worth man was injured in Iraq”

Well, whaddya know?  You mean the guy was lying?  “I’m shocked – shocked! – to find that gambling is going on in here!”

Now I’m not suggesting most, or even any, of the other veterans telling similar stories are lying. Sadly, though, we’ve seen so much of this stuff now, chances are that some of them are, but, either way, it still casts a shadow over all of us veterans who aren’t lying about our service records.

And, hey, it hasn’t helped one bit that we’ve had several federal judges rule that the Stolen Valor Act is invalid and lying about your military service record is free speech protected by the First Amendment. Don’t even get me started on that one – one of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard.

It’s gotten to the point that you need to ask any of us for a copy of our DD214, “Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty” – you can even see glimpses of this guy’s in that video. There’s a long and short version of that form, even then it could be altered, and you need to know how to read it, but I’d bet that would stop 99% of this nonsense right off. But, ultimately, you have to do what the TV station did here, and get somebody to send you an official verified copy – note that that took a release from the veteran, though.  Bottom line is the burden of proof is on the veteran.

Just keep this story in mind next time you see one like it – and you will. Don’t you be the one getting hooked.

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.

Never heard of them before – they’re not ADI-accredited or even members that I can tell, and I have no experience with their dogs or any idea how good they are, which is ultimately what counts.

So I can’t recommend them, BUT I do know they got one key concept right:  they have veterans with post-traumatic stress helping train dogs for OTHER veterans with physical injuries, as opposed to training service dogs for those veterans with PTS themselves.

I’ve mentioned this idea before, in particular what’s probably the most well-known program, Paws for Purple Hearts.  No question there are still important considerations, particularly the involvement and supervision of the professional trainers in the program.  But, as I’ve said, programs like this benefit everybody without so many of the issues I am so concerned about, like using the dogs to prevent physical contact with others to maintain their human partner’s “personal space”.

Read the article closely and watch this short video.  Note that most, if not all, of the benefits that Steve Fox, the veteran who’s helping train the dogs and is in both pieces, mentions are the same ones that are brought up all the time for those with PTS – reduced amounts of medication, getting out in public for extended periods of time, and so on.

A lot more places could take a hint here and adopt this type of program rather than continually forcing the issue of full-up service dogs for those veterans living with post-traumatic stress – we’d all be a lot better off.

“Dual-duty dogs”

(There may be a few inaccuracies in the article – for example, I’m certainly familiar with the legislation, but I’m not sure exactly which bill the writer is referring to here: “Legislation that would create a $7 million, five-year pilot program at up to five Veterans Affairs facilities is currently before the Senate.” – but that doesn’t detract from the overall theme.)

I’ve known about PPH for several years, but I’m surprised to find I’ve never written about it here – just searched and didn’t see anything. The biggest thing I’ve always liked about it was the separation – these are veterans with post-traumatic stress training service dogs for OTHER veterans who have physical issues, as opposed to getting the dogs themselves. That removes much of what I’m concerned about with using service dogs where those with PTS are concerned while still offering them the benefits.

Plus, the program is run under the auspices of Bergin University of Canine Studies, which was known as the Assistance Dog Institute for many years.   Bonnie Bergin’s a little far out for me on some things, BUT she is, after all, the person credited with starting the whole assistance dog movement and who founded Canine Companions for Independence, and her organization is a long-time accredited member of Assistance Dogs International.

All of which is far better than the vast majority of what’s out there. I am increasingly concerned with some of the organizations that have popped up outta nowhere, especially those training “PTSD dogs”, one in particular that’s got my attention and I’ve been biting my tongue hard about since I first heard of it about six months ago. (I’m still being quiet for now, but maybe not much longer – that’s how much this place scares me.)

Please – if you’re gonna look for a service dog to help you or someone else deal with PTS, be smart.  Even though I’m no fan of the whole concept (at least as it’s being implemented right now), I can still aim you at a number of places who train those kinda dogs who I’d talk to LONG before some I see getting a lotta favorable press and who I’d likely not talk to at all.

In any event, might need some refinements, but I think the whole PPH concept is a good one overall and I’d like to see a lot more programs like it.  About the only “bad” thing I see is using “Paws” in the name, since there are so many places that use that and it’s confusing. There are some great ones – most notably Paws With A Cause – and some other definitely not-so-great ones.  As I always say, look closely.

With that in mind, here are three great options – I’m sure there are more, but these are ones that have very good reputations and I’m comfortable recommending to you:

Hounds4Heroes

Pets for Patriots

Pets2Vets

What I continually try to impress upon people is that, sure, dogs have a role to play here, just not necessarily SERVICE dogs. But, hey, even if  – unlike me – you think that service dogs for those whose only or primary issue is post-traumatic stress is a great idea, I would ask you to consider a few things.

A service dog, wonderful as they are, comes at a price (sometimes money is involved, but that’s not what I meant), primarily a lot of responsibility and some specific requirements. The vast majority of what most tout for those with post-traumatic stress – companionship, sensing when things are wrong, focusing on the dog as a way of calming yourself, etc – you can get with a pet. Where things ramp up significantly is when you say the dog has to be a service dog, really in two key ways.

First, public access, which actually is given to the human, not the dog, and you can look up the legal definition, but as I’ve said before, just think of it as being able to take your dog places dogs normally aren’t allowed to go (“When You Hear “Service Dog”, Think “Public Access”). This is an orders of magnitude jump for both the dog and the human, and changes the playing field entirely.  Walking down the street with your dog to the library, school, store, stadium, restaurant, and so on, is one thing – once you say I absolutely, positively have to take my dog INTO those places, and step across that line, everything changes.

Second, training the dog to perform specific tasks with specific, predictable results (the ADI standard, for example, is that a command will be performed 90% of the time on the first ask). It’s one thing to say “my dog calms me and licks my face when I wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat after a terrible nightmare” – a common theme – and quite another to say the dog has to be trained to sense an impending episode when you’re in the grocery store, restaurant, office, etc., respond to that, give you an indicator, you respond appropriately to that indicator, take a specific action, and do all of that reliably and consistently.

Now, I know that in this day and age where the normal attitude about everything seems to be entitlement, to suggest the kinda self-restraint I’m suggesting usually doesn’t go over so well and results in a lot of comments like “How dare you try to deny me/him/her/us/them (whatever it is)!”  But if you can keep from getting caught up in that, and can live without those things (and, based on what those who know much better than me, e.g., combat veterans, have said to me, I contend the majority of those we’re talking about not only can, it may very well be a much more appropriate option for them as well), it has the huge benefit of getting you out of a lotta stuff and opening up a lot more options for you.

Here’s the reality, anyway. With the numbers that are being tossed around about just how many veterans suffer from varying degrees of PTS (a well-known RAND study said 300,000, and that was two years ago and only from OEF and OIF), there’s no way we are ever gonna get there with service dogs. Even if somebody says the real need for those with severe enough issues to warrant a service dog is “only” 10% of that – shoot, even if it was 1% – 3,000 properly trained service dog teams, especially on top of the already existing need, is a BUNCH. And even if you include all the options – organizations, individual trainers, or people training dogs for themselves – I don’t ever see that happening. Not if you’re gonna do it right.

So, with all that in mind, if you’re thinking about a dog for the reasons we’re talking about here, why not take a real hard look at organizations like this, and start with these three?

Definitely worth reading the whole thing because there are a lot of good background details you want to be aware of in it (and, for the record, I had nothing to do with it at all – we just agree about a lot of  things), but here are the two main issues.  The first one everybody will get behind, the second I have no doubt AMVETS will take heat for, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re correct and the issue needs to be addressed:

“…access for service dogs other than guide dogs to VA facilities remains at the discretion of each individual medical center director.”

I’ve discussed this before, but the ADA doesn’t cover public access for anyone at VA facilities other than employees.  The result (and there are documented cases of this happening right now) is the classic Catch-22 where a veteran has a legitimate service dog under the ADA, that dog has been approved for benefits by the VA, but the veteran can’t take the dog into VA facilities, in many cases the very ones where he’s receiving treatment for the same physical issues for which he has the dog.

“There are no current ADI standards for psychiatric service dogs and minimal scientific data to support assertions on their overall effectiveness… Given the current situation, AMVETS warns that accepting assertions about psychiatric service dogs at face value could prove to be a disservice to affected veterans, only creating more hurdles to earned care and benefits.”

If you went by the majority of what you see online, on TV, and in print, you’d never realize this was the case – you’d think this was a done deal.  Well, it’s not, and as I’ve said many times, I have big qualms about this whole area, particularly since so many have “declared victory and gone home” on this subject, as if the mere fact that a veteran suffering with post-traumatic stress is out in public with a dog proves that the dog is working and that it is an effective solution.

As I’ve said, I want to write shorter posts more often rather than longer ones, so I will continue to address why I feel that way in other posts.  There are a number of solid reasons, and I will, as always, do my best to give you the information and tools you need to make your own decisions.

You definitely need to read their site and blog for the details of how they’re going to make this happen – it’s a good plan – but here’s their stated mission:

“Pets for Patriots’ vision is to end animal homelessness by supporting the permanent placement of adult dogs and cats with every available, able, and willing military family in the U.S.”

Great concept in general, but what really caught my eye was Beth’s post (“Pets for Patriots launches new program with the U.S. Army“) a few days ago about visiting the Army Wounded Warrior (AW2) office recently here at Ft Carson, and specifically this sentence:

“Wounded soldiers who don’t qualify for a service animal – but would benefit from a new pet friend – will be referred to us.”

Exactly!  This is another outstanding example of a key concept I wrote about last November after reading about the Washington DC Humane Society’s Dog Tags program where troops rehabbing at Walter Reed Army Medical Center train dogs in basic obedience so they have a greater chance of being adopted. Please go read that post in its entirety (it’s not long) – everything I said there is still true today (in fact, even more so) and I’d just have to repost the whole thing here: “Every Veteran With A Disability Doesn’t Need A Service Dog, And This Is A Great Alternative“

No question in my mind that dogs have an important role to play with helping our wounded warriors recover, just not necessarily SERVICE dogs, something so many seem to assume.

We absolutely have to look at the ENTIRE range of options when we’re talking about dogs helping veterans, especially where post-traumatic stress is involved. Things like veterans training dogs in shelters so they have a better chance to be adopted, or adopting great pets, or working with a therapist who has a Canine Companions for Independence Facility Dog, or raising dogs that will eventually be service dogs for someone else (with the caveat that those dogs receive advanced training from a professional trainer), and so on.

Let’s be very clear – Beth is coming at things from a different and broader angle than I am, but Pets for Patriots is also a perfect fit for what I’m looking to accomplish and gives me one more very valuable option to offer people. I very much look forward to working with her as she expands this program both locally here in Colorado Springs and around the country as well.

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.

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.