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/canine-companions-for-independence-veterans-outreach-event-at-oklahoma-city-va-medical-center-march-19/ http://www.albrittain.com/veterans/canine-companions-for-independence-veterans-outreach-event-at-oklahoma-city-va-medical-center-march-19/#comments Tue, 01 Mar 2011 18:10:59 +0000 Al http://www.albrittain.com/?p=10619 Now that it’s March, great time for a reminder about the upcoming Canine Companions Salutes Independence military focused event on March 19th at the Oklahoma City VA Medical Center.

It’s a big deal – I’ll just insert  the flyer here and you can see for yourself. Click on the image for the even larger PDF version.

It’s not long – just go read the whole thing, and have anyone you can think of with a possible interest read it as well. Lotta stuff said there in a very public venue that’s needed to be said and, frankly, hasn’t been. Or at least not often enough or by those I’d expect to be saying it, anyway.

“Disabled troops, vets misled on service dogs”

Coupla small quibbles for me there, but not serious enough to be relevant or affect the overall thrust at all.

I’ve been directly involved with this specific subject daily for over four years, and service dogs in general longer than that, and I can tell you with complete certainty that most veterans, their families, and the professionals working with them still have NO IDEA what’s available, which places are good, which are not, and so on.

In fact, it’s even worse now than when I first got involved with it because of both the increased potential veteran demand for service dogs and the misleading information pumped out daily by the media, bloggers, some organizations, and even veterans with dogs themselves.

Super job by my friend Christina Roof at AMVETS once again stepping into the breach to educate everyone with the straight story.

In one case, I reached out several months ago with no response; the other one I just saw today and didn’t. I really don’t have the time to keep everybody straight, and it’s not my responsibility, anyway.

But I can make this point – you might have a great program, and I’d love to support you, but I simply can’t if you do stuff like this. Sorry.

If you recognize where they’re from, please, don’t yell at me about it – I already know who they are. Help THEM out and let them know about the problem.

Pretty obvious what’s wrong and the people involved oughtta know better, particularly since they are pitching these as patriotic programs for veterans. In case it’s not, though, I put a short explanation under each picture.

And to those who will say it’s small stuff… well, it’s not, especially the flag one (I cringe every time I see it or other ones in the series of photos like it). C’mon – we can do better than this, and we have to.

You don’t drape the US flag over something like that AND, to top it off, you sure don’t let it touch the ground (Ugh!).

Unless the Army’s got some new casual look thing going (trust me, they don’t), that uniform always includes a tie.

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.

]]> http://www.albrittain.com/veterans/guess-what-the-most-popular-breed-of-service-dog-will-be-in-denver-and-aurora-next-year/feed/ 0 http://www.albrittain.com/veterans/another-great-dog-option-for-veterans-dealing-with-post-traumatic-stress-paws-for-purple-hearts/ http://www.albrittain.com/veterans/another-great-dog-option-for-veterans-dealing-with-post-traumatic-stress-paws-for-purple-hearts/#comments Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:00:20 +0000 Al http://www.albrittain.com/?p=7689 There’s an article today in the Washington Post about another great option for using dogs to help veterans whose only or primary issue is post-traumatic stress – Paws for Purple Hearts.  Actually, as the title of the article suggests, the dogs help those veterans as well as the veterans with serious physical injuries who ultimately receive the dogs once they’ve been trained as service dogs.

“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.

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.

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.

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.