# Fake Service Dogs



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ates_n_3709720.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Instead of tying up their pooches to a lamppost, a growing number of New Yorkers are obtaining fake service dogs certificates so that they can take their pets with them wherever they go, the New York Post reports.

In an exclusive story, the Post shared a number of accounts of candid dog owners in New York City who have simply bought bogus patches, vests and certificates that look like the real thing, slapped them on their dogs and now head off together pretty much anywhere they want to go without any trouble. Some say they do it for the convenience of it, others say it helps them with their dating prospects.

“He’s been to most movie theaters in the city, more nightclubs than most of my friends,” Brett David, 33, a restaurateur told the Post of his Maltese Yorkie.“I don’t care who you are, a teacup Yorkie will trump a black [American Express] card when you’re trying to pick up a girl.”

Legally, in order for a dog to qualify as a service animal, the owner must have a documented disability defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the dog must be trained to help its handler with the disability and the service animal can’t disrupt its environment, according to Petpartners.org. However, the ADA doesn’t require service animals to be officially certified, which is likely part of why there isn’t enough oversight.

“Currently, these companies aren’t breaking any laws,” Becky Barnes, former president of Guide Dogs Users, Inc. told Cesar’s Way, a website run by the famed “Dog Whisperer.” “With service dogs there doesn’t seem to be a white and black area but a huge gray area. Discussions have begun to make it a misdemeanor to misrepresent your dog as a service dog. Unfortunately, it is being taken as seriously as pirating music.”

Another issue that’s beginning to now cause problems for people who actually need service dogs is that establishments are not permitted to ask people to show proof of a disability, or that their animal is certified, according to Service Dogs America.

But now that more people are claiming to need service dogs, people with actual disabilities are being questioned more by frustrated store owners, according to Cesar’s Way.

The other concerning problem is that dogs that are not trained to sit patiently indoors may disturb the service dogs and affect the way they help their owners.

“People don’t realize that if the dog misbehaves in any way,” Toni Eames, blind president of the International Association of Assistance Dog Partners, told the Post, “if it isn’t clean, barks or is overly friendly and jumps on people -- that it aggravates other dogs and disrupts the way they do service.”


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Another example of why people suck. 

Yes, I'd love to be able to take my dog everywhere with me, but not at the expense of people with real disabilities who need their service animals to be accepted into places without a hassle.

Slightly off topic, but it also ticked me off to no end to see someone carrying their chihuahua into the grocery store without anyone giving her so much as a glance. Sometimes, it just sucks how differently "purse dogs" are treated than big dogs. I feel like the same rules should apply for both. If I can't take my huge beast dog with me shopping, why should you be able to take your pocket pooch? (But that's a whole other rant!)


----------



## Swandog (Jun 28, 2013)

Scum. 
What other scams these creeps are pulling.
Probably stealing from the Salvation Army pot. 
The guy can't get a date in a bar without his teacup Yorkie; loser. 
Wonder what he claims disability is? Consciencelessitis.


----------



## skitty56 (Jan 22, 2012)

A woman came into the store the other day with a dog in thundershirt and a muzzle. On the thundershirt was red duct tape that said 'service dog'. She told the cashier that it was so she could take the dog on the bus, i was rather dumbfounded that she could get away with that.


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

Very wrong. Don't people have morals anymore? 

Yesterday Luke and I waited outside Target for a very long time when my mother was in there. But you know what, we had too. As I told Luke, "It's a human store and dogs aren't allowed." People are just.... *can't think of the right word now*


----------



## GrinningDog (Mar 26, 2010)

> Yes, I'd love to be able to take my dog everywhere with me, but not at the expense of people with real disabilities who need their service animals to be accepted into places without a hassle.


This is how I feel.

I do wonder why there is no official registry for service dogs, though. Seems like having a card or something from such a registry would be a good way for store owners to weed out fakers without interrogating someone about their disability.

Edit: The article did mention fake certificates. I didn't know real service dogs were issued certificates.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

I hate fake service dogs... I don't see the point. Leave your dog at home if you don't need it for your mental or physical health.

Real service dogs aren't always issued certificates. If they are owner trained for instance. And the insinuation that vests bought online always mean a fake SD bothers me because of owner trained dogs. I say look at the behavior, not just the vest. I know a lady with legit mobility support dogs that she trained herself who have homemade vests, but they ARE task trained and public access trained.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Kirsten&Gypsy said:


> Seems like having a card or something from such a registry would be a good way for store owners to weed out fakers without interrogating someone about their disability.


That would be hard to pass, because it would require discrimination against the disabled. Imagine having to wait at the door until your ID is checked to allow you into an establishment...


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Having a registry could be either good or terrible... I can think of more cons than pros. Such as barring people with invisible mental disabilities or other disabilities from having SDs because they aren't disabled enough. The state has already told my mom who can barely walk some days that she's not disabled enough for disability checks... Imagine having them tell people that about service dogs. And she could use one if she were so inclined.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Registry would be horrible for me, because in essence if you register a service dog you're registering yourself as disabled. The possibility for abuse of that is enormous. 

No, thank you. I hate fake service-dogs, and I think people who do that are absolute scum. 

But I'll take them over needing to register myself with a government entity as disabled.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Don't they know that if you walk right into a store with a small dog in a bag, nobody will question you?  No service dog impersonation needed. I was at Big Lots the other day and a couple of kids were jumping all over the furniture with their puppy (!), and nobody said one word. Ack.

But, yeah. Faking service dog status is totally scummy.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Don't they know that if you walk right into a store with a small dog in a bag, nobody will question you?  No service dog impersonation needed. I was at Big Lots the other day and a couple of kids were jumping all over the furniture with their puppy (!), and nobody said one word. Ack.
> 
> But, yeah. Faking service dog status is totally scummy.


I find this almost as scummy, myself, but not quite because it doesn't hurt the disabled.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I think that store owners / corporations could alleviate some of this by allowing dogs in like lowes, TSC, & Home Depot do (of course the same rules apply to humans who disrupt business, they can be asked to leave & banned if they misbehave).

I mean children are allowed in places like Walmart & whatnot & you know what germ factories kids are (sorry but it's true).


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I mean children are allowed in places like Walmart & whatnot & you know what germ factories kids are (sorry but it's true).


Yes, but people don't generally have asthmatic attacks at children, nor do children serving food constitute a health code violation.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

No I didn't mean restaurants, no lol, ESP since their hair goes EVERYWHERE. 

I was talking like you know, I think Walmart would be fine (I know they sell food, but pet hair can't be any worse then the pesticides they use on fruit).

Though I think that's what wrong with society, we have made ourselves allergic to everything. I work the race nights & I you'd be surprised how many parents wouldn't let their kids pet the horses because they had allergies ... Uh ... What? I have allergies too, I am allergic (skin wise) to hay & shavings. Dos that stop me? Nope.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> No I didn't mean restaurants, no lol, ESP since their hair goes EVERYWHERE.
> 
> I was talking like you know, I think Walmart would be fine (I know they sell food, but pet hair can't be any worse then the pesticides they use on fruit).
> 
> Though I think that's what wrong with society, we have made ourselves allergic to everything. I work the race nights & I you'd be surprised how many parents wouldn't let their kids pet the horses because they had allergies ... Uh ... What? I have allergies too, I am allergic (skin wise) to hay & shavings. Dos that stop me? Nope.



Sort of yes, sort of no. I mean, yeah, allergies are more of a thing now and that's a problem but I'm not comparing my itchy eyes and stuffy nose to someone else's anaphylatic shock. I don't know, I guess I just don't see the appeal in taking my dog to Wal-Mart with me to begin with. It keeps other people comfortable and safe, and honest to god - what the hell is my dog getting out of a walmart trip?


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Well. There was a time where I lived in an apt & it would have been nice to be able to take Izze in instead of having to take the keyless entry off my keychain & lock my keys in the car with it running during Summer. 

Buddy would benefit from outings like that, lol. All I'm saying is it would be nice to have the option.


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

We have a small mall in our small town and Seeing eye dogs are the only ones allowed. The only stores you can take your dog into are the Pet Store and the Feed Store. If there are any "Service Dogs" I have never seen any.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Our Lowes and Home Depot have signs saying pets aren't allowed, but I've found that as long as a dog is well-behaved and you keep control of them? The employees love having them visit. Same with feed stores and pet stores as well as our local biker leather store, which also sells Schutzhund supplies since the owners are Malinois owners in one of the clubs.

There are times I'd love to be able to take my dog in with me for a quick errand rather than leave him in the truck, particularly if it's really hot or, up here, bitterly cold. However, I understand that there are lots of places that dogs in general aren't really appropriate. I still think though, if a store only allows service animals, that no exception should be made based on the size of the dog. If my large non-service dog isn't permitted, no non-service purse dogs should be permitted, either.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Kyllobernese said:


> We have a small mall in our small town and Seeing eye dogs are the only ones allowed. The only stores you can take your dog into are the Pet Store and the Feed Store. If there are any "Service Dogs" I have never seen any.


There are other service dogs aside from guide dogs... If there are some in your area they should be allowed in as they are real service animals and do help their owners medically.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I've taken my dogs into TSC just for the experience. But shopping with dogs? Not what I want to do on a regular basis, LOL. Plus, Toby's hair sticks to everything. . .if I'm wearing nice clothes I have to stay 5 feet away (it jumps ) from him. I definitely do not take him into the clothing section at TSC. I can imagine him walking through the clothes aisles at Walmart. . .. No thanks.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> I've taken my dogs into TSC just for the experience. But shopping with dogs? Not what I want to do on a regular basis, LOL. Plus, Toby's hair sticks to everything. . .if I'm wearing nice clothes I have to stay 5 feet away (it jumps ) from him. I definitely do not take him into the clothing section at TSC. I can imagine him walking through the clothes aisles at Walmart. . .. No thanks.


Yeah, pretty much me. I mean if we're out I'll stop at TSC (because it's between us and the park) and buy the dogs a treat or a new toy once in a while, let them socialize a bit or whatever, but my REGULAR shopping trips? The ones where I am trying to accomplish something, may or may not have kids with me, and need cargo space and to wait in long lines and deal with moderate crowds?

No.

Gas stations. Gas stations I wish were dog friendly sometimes, because those are the most likely stop for me to make while I'm out with them.


----------



## Aska (Jun 9, 2013)

Where I live, you can't take your dog on the bus or stores, other than the pet store. I know a woman who got kicked out of her apartment because her service dog barked when it thought its owner was in danger, just to see if she would response to it.

... Fake service dogs don't help with that!


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I would never have the nerve to walk into a store with my dog regardless of how small he is. It's just ridiculous. There's a reason why stores don't want people bringing there pets into places, especially around food products. 

Not too long ago I was in Ramsey's and this women was walking around with her dog like it's no big deal. Go into home depot next and there she is again. She's walking along and passing employees and they didn't say I thing to her. I was amazed, it's not like the dog even looked like a service dog or had a vest or anything.

Sometimes people really amaze me.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Confidence and chutzpah get you pretty far. Unfortunately, it's usually the wrong people who have an abundance of confidence and chutzpah .


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

I leave my dog in my car even when going to stores that allow dogs. It's just easier and quicker.

I don't know if there is anything but there should be some kind of law that at the very least imposes massive fines of the owners of fake service dogs. People will still do it of course but meh. Not much more you can reasonably do.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

The only issue with fining people for having fake service dogs is that you have to prove that they're fake. How could that be done without putting legitimate service dog owners in the cross hairs, too? They have the right to shop without being hassled and forced to prove they're disabled.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I would never have the nerve to walk into a store with my dog regardless of how small he is. It's just ridiculous. There's a reason why stores don't want people bringing there pets into places, especially around food products.
> 
> Not too long ago I was in Ramsey's and this women was walking around with her dog like it's no big deal. Go into home depot next and there she is again. She's walking along and passing employees and they didn't say I thing to her. I was amazed, it's not like the dog even looked like a service dog or had a vest or anything.
> 
> Sometimes people really amaze me.


They allow dogs in Home Depot here!


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Crantastic said:


> The only issue with fining people for having fake service dogs is that you have to prove that they're fake. How could that be done without putting legitimate service dog owners in the cross hairs, too? They have the right to shop without being hassled and forced to prove they're disabled.


What can you do that would discourage fake service dogs but not affect real service dog owners?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

That's what I'm asking -- I can't think of anything. Store owners can legally ask if the dog is a service animal and what work or task the dog has been trained to perform. They cannot ask what the person's disability is or require them to provide any kind of written proof of a disability. Fakers could easily lie. I am not sure how to prove someone's a fake without ending up hassling some legitimate owners.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> That's what I'm asking -- I can't think of anything. Store owners can legally ask if the dog is a service animal and what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. They cannot ask what the person's disability is or require them to provide any kind of written proof of a disability. Fakers could easily lie. I am not sure how to prove someone's a fake without ending up hassling some legitimate owners.


It isn't even the matter of being hassled at the door. It's that to register with a service dog you are registering YOURSELF with a disability. 

The host of problems from that is just immense.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

What host of problems?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Yes, that too. The current system is flawed because it is really easy for fakers to lie and skirt the rules, but stricter laws would hurt people with legitimate service dogs just as much.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

zhaor said:


> What host of problems?


Well. You know HIPPA, that thing that keeps your medical information so you can't be discriminated against based on it? 

That's a good start to breaking it all to heck.


----------



## Kyndall54 (Apr 26, 2013)

I've seen this a lot in my college town. There's a man who brings his beagle to classes and on campus and he barks all the time, in class, at other dogs or people on campus, and he is pulling on his leash every time I see him. To me that doesn't scream legitimate service dog, but he somehow gained permission to take his beagle in classes so maybe it's an emotional service dog. I saw another dog in the grocery store who had an orange vest with "service dog" crudely written on in black sharpie. This dog was older and also pulling on the leash.

There was a lady who trained yellow lab service dogs in our puppy class, I see her around town pretty often too. Her dogs always have a very professional looking vest on, everything is embroidered, and her dogs are always loose leash walking next to her. That is what I expect to see when I think service dog. 

As for Ammy, I'll take her into the pet stores, and there is a coffee place in town that allows dogs to come in. Otherwise she waits outside on leash waiting for me to come back or stays at home .


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Well I mean if you want special treatment for having a disability, you kind of have to let people know you have a disability. I don't see why it should be a bigger deal than say...getting an handicapped parking permit.

Maybe I'm still misunderstanding something.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Kyndall54 said:


> I've seen this a lot in my college town. There's a man who brings his beagle to classes and on campus and he barks all the time, in class, at other dogs or people on campus, and he is pulling on his leash every time I see him. To me that doesn't scream legitimate service dog, but he somehow gained permission to take his beagle in classes so maybe it's an emotional service dog.


A psychiatric service dog still has to be task trained and well behaved in public.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Having a service dog isn't "special treatment" any more than having a wheelchair is special treatment (why can't I bring MY scooter into Walmart? ). It helps them live a normal life like non-disabled people.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

zhaor said:


> What host of problems?


Between 1907 and 1981 over 65000 were forcibly sterilized in this country (US) because they were deemed "unfit". Wouldn't it be handy to have an already compiled list of people who are "defective", "unfit" or "undesirable" in case the populace ever gets another bright idea on how to "perfect the human race" or eradicate "genetic weaknesses"? Tons of tax payer money and federal employee time saved when everything is already laid out in black or white.

Not to mention the ability for any Tom, **** or Harry to possibly obtain access to your confidential and protected health information. Couple that with the possibility of discrimination in all social, occupational, educational and financial aspects of life if your name and "issues" are compiled in black and white in a nationally available list. Sounds like disaster to me.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Eugenics wars. . .

Why, yes, I do watch too much Star Trek


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

^^Bingo.

Under the law, my service dog is *medical equipment*! It is not special treatment.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

If you want it so only legitimate service dogs are allowed, then would that not be special treatment?


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

If being able to live a normal and productive life is special treatment, sure. If being able to have a wheelchair is special treatment, then sure.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

zhaor said:


> Well I mean if you want special treatment for having a disability, you kind of have to let people know you have a disability. I don't see why it should be a bigger deal than say...getting an handicapped parking permit.
> 
> Maybe I'm still misunderstanding something.


The dog isn't a handicap permit - which requires a doctor's 'prescription'. It's a piece of medical equipment, in these instances. It's like having a knee-brace and having to register that you have the knee-brace because you have bone-cancer and having that information be made available to everyone and their mother because you got a knee brace. Obviously if you're out with a service dog SOMETHING is up, but there is a difference between something being up and 'oh, that person has, for instance, crippling anxiety or epilepsy' which are things that can be used against you in all sorts of ways. 

Figuring out how that placard belongs to in a parking lot is kind of hard, though I suppose it could be done. There's also a matter of it being given for other family members in a household, and associated with a car, not an individual. 

You MIGHT be able to get away with doing something similar with dogs and registration - but only if you're then prepared, as a taxpayer, to supply all the dogs needed to all the people a doctor was willing to 'prescribe' them for but can't afford the expense of their own. Or as an insurance consumer to pay for the increased costs when your provider starts reimbursing for them.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

zhaor said:


> If you want it so only legitimate service dogs are allowed, then would that not be special treatment?


No. Special treatment implies you wants a right that other people do not have. Dogs being allowed everywhere is not a right everyone has. Being able to go in public and function IS a right everyone already has. Some people just need a dog to be able to do that. It's no different than a walker, or an oxygen tank.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

No one cares if I use a wheelchair or knee brace without being injured.

I still see letting service dogs in stores but not letting other dogs as more similar to a parking permit than just generic 'equipment'. The 'service dog permit' sort to speak would be associated with the dog, like how a parking permit is associated with a car. It's special treatment for the dog.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

The only possibility I would see for having a "registry" that could circumvent the issues associated with registering a disability would be if the dog were registered and not the handler. Much like with the parking permit where it can be and is assigned to the car and not the actual driver. This system could also _possibly_ cut down on the number of ill-trained service dogs that occasionally make it into the news.

If there were some sort of standardized training and evaluation program where dogs were tested on a set number of behavioral and obedience items before getting a registration card that officially categorized them as "service dogs" then they can be identified as such without ever having to divulge the handler's disability. Of course this opens up a whole new can of worms for the application of this registry: who overseas, what are the guidelines, who qualifies, how is it funded, how are dogs assigned, etc? Just not practical on the scale that would be necessary.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

zhaor said:


> No one cares if I use a wheelchair or knee brace without being injured.
> 
> I still see letting service dogs in stores but not letting other dogs as more similar to a parking permit than just generic 'equipment'. The 'service dog permit' sort to speak would be associated with the dog, like how a parking permit is associated with a car. It's special treatment for the dog.


Yeah. Of course they don't. Except they do care, and hanging around with someone who is disabled and forced to depend on one will show you plenty of it - and expose you to it. As well as some disgusting, abelist attitudes about their mental capacity, worth as human beings, and value as employees. 

Or, you know, people thinking that service animals and being able to use one is a special privilege instead of the best available means for living a life. 

Look. It isn't perfect. People take advantage of it. It pisses me off, too. They see 'hey, you get to do this cool thing and I want to do it, too' and it upsets everyone and makes it harder on people who need to use service animals for their quality of life and safety. But if you can't see how being registered as disabled is a problem -and disabled as above and beyond mobility impaired, as in a handicapped parking sticker- I don't even know what to tell you.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Emmett said:


> The only possibility I would see for having a "registry" that could circumvent the issues associated with registering a disability would be in the dog were registered and not the handler. Much like with the parking permit where it can be and is assigned to the car and the actual driver. This system could also _possibly_ cut down on the number of ill-trained service dogs that occasionally make it into the news.
> 
> If there were some sort of standardized training and evaluation program where dogs were tested on a set number of behavioral and obedience items before getting a registration card that officially categorized them as "service dogs" then they be identified as such without ever having to divulge the handler's disability. Of course this opens up a whole new can of worms for the application of this registry: who overseas, what are the guidelines, who qualifies, how is it funded, how are dogs assigned, etc? Just not practical on the scale that would be necessary.



Yeah, exactly. Registering the dog could work, but by the time you do that you either have a handler associated, or you have ENORMOUS cost. That's why so many service dogs are handler trained. They have to be. Never mind the vast amount of variance in the tasks the dogs need to be able to do. It's not like it's an all purpose thing, here, you know? Someone with mobility issues, anxiety issues, who is deaf, who is blind, who is paraplegic, who is epileptic - whatever - do not all need the same functions from the dog!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> If there were some sort of standardized training and evaluation program where dogs were tested on a set number of behavioral and obedience items


But how can you test beyond the basic sit, down, stand, stay, come? You can have three people with mobility dogs, and all three dogs are trained to mitigate the mobility disability of their handlers in different ways.

I have a friend who utilizes a guide dog. She is not blind. She has a sensory processing issue. The way her dog works is not exactly the same as how other guides work, though there are similarities.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

Xeph said:


> But how can you test beyond the basic sit, down, stand, stay, come? You can have three people with mobility dogs, and all three dogs are trained to mitigate the mobility disability of their handlers in different ways.
> 
> I have a friend who utilizes a guide dog. She is not blind. She has a sensory processing issue. The way her dog works is not exactly the same as how other guides work, though there are similarities.


Which is exactly why the rest of my paragraph goes on to enumerate those issues.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

I guess what I don't understand is can anyone get a service dog? Can any dog be a service dog?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

zhaor said:


> I guess what I don't understand is can anyone get a service dog? Can any dog be a service dog?


Any dog can be a service dog, if it is trained to perform specific tasks to aid its owner/handler in the performance of daily living and tasks. 

Anyone can have a service dog if they need the dog to do specific things to help them. 

Like - an emotional support animal that is just present and therefore makes its owner feel better is not a service dog, even if the owner has crippling anxiety. Take that dog and train it to do specific things (retrieve meds, anticipate anxiety attacks and respond by moving the owner toward a quieter location, and, I don't know, perform a protective barrier between its owner and other people) and it becomes a service animal.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> can anyone get a service dog? Can any dog be a service dog?


In answer to question #1, itepends on how you look at it and where you live

Question #2? Hell no. It takes a really special dog to do service work.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

zhaor said:


> I guess what I don't understand is can anyone get a service dog? Can any dog be a service dog?


No. 

It boils down to two main issues:
1) Do you, the handler, have a verifiable (diagnosed) disability that is covered under the ADA?
2) Has the dog been TRAINED to perform a task, or tasks, that mitigate said disability?

Have to meet both criteria for the dog to be considered a service dog.


----------



## Kyndall54 (Apr 26, 2013)

Kayota said:


> A psychiatric service dog still has to be task trained and well behaved in public.


I agree! I feel bad for everyone that has a class with him, my fiancée did and said he would bark all the time in class .


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> my fiancée did and said he would bark all the time in class


The professor could have requested that the handler remove the dog


----------



## Tacktheritrix (Jun 25, 2013)

Hi all. First time poster, finally a topic I feel like I can actually contribute too. :wave:

I work at a hotel, and fake service dogs are a BIG problem for us. It's frustrating because we actually are a pet friendly hotel, but of course there's an additional pet fee. We're not allowed to charge service dogs the pet fee, and I guess people will say anything to save a few more bucks. I've probably seen one true service dog (owner was blind) and countless "service dogs." We just have to let it slide, since, as mentioned before in this thread, we cannot ask the person their disability.

I think a lot of people think the pet fee is bunk and that hotels charge additional fees for pets just because they can. Nope. We really do have to spend the extra time and effort to deep clean every single pet room. I know at my hotel, after check-out, we have to put each pet room out of order for one full day. That means we can't check someone back into it that day, so it's not available to sell, and we basically lose one night's potential revenue for every pet room we take. We have to deodorize it and go over the carpet, furniture, and even walls with big versions of the sticky rollers to pick up any leftover hairs. The linens have their own special machines, and sometimes they have to be double or triple washed. That just covers the normal cleaning procedure. In some bad cases, the pet fee doesn't even begin to cover the actual cost of cleaning the room. I know service dogs are supposed to be really well trained, but some of the messes these "service dogs" leave behind boggles my mind. It pains me to see my housekeepers working so hard on these "service dog" rooms and the hotel doesn't even get extra compensation for it. 

I have a dog now, and I would never take him into a hotel that's not pet friendly, or claim he's a service dog to avoid paying a pet fee. You have to deal with every aspect of owning a pet - the good, the bad, the inconvenient.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Do the employees at the hotel ever ask what work the dog is trained to do to mitigate the disability of the handler? Most fakers can't answer that question.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Ok so going back a bit. The issue with registering service dogs is that the owners don't want to be seen as disabled?
But....service dogs are pretty much only for people with some kind of disability?

so.........


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

zhaor said:


> Ok so going back a bit. The issue with registering service dogs is that the owners don't want to be seen as disabled?
> But....service dogs are pretty much only for people with some kind of disability?
> 
> so.........


Do you seriously not see the difference between 'has some sort of disability' and *disclosing what that disability is*? 

Because I'll tell you straight up, there's stigma and issue associated with everything, but some are a lot worse than others, and a lot more likely to be levied against you in terms of things like employment. 

Do you understand why HIPPA exists?


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Disclosing to who? to a doctor? into some kind of city record? Do people check exactly what disability a person has before they are allowed to park in a handicapped space?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Do people check exactly what disability a person has before they are allowed to park in a handicapped space?


It's actually a simple questionnaire that involves what the person's limitations are, and why they need the placard.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

so why would that be so problematic for a service dog?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Xeph said:


> It's actually a simple questionnaire that involves what the person's limitations are, and why they need the placard.


Yes. Which is what is legally okay to ask people with service dogs now, in essence. The only reason the DMV has that is they issue the placard. You want to start issuing dogs from a government agency, talk to me about similar things for service dogs.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

It would be too easy for the government to decide that psychiatric problems like anxiety aren't real disabilities. That's one reason I can think of.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Xeph said:


> I DON'T want to start issuing dogs from a government agency. I owner train.


Sorry, no, I know. I was agreeing with you and directing toward zhaor. I'm on the ipad and got overly lazy.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Because I'll tell you straight up, there's stigma and issue associated with everything, but some are a lot worse than others, and a lot more likely to be levied against you in terms of things like employment.


For instance, I have a friend with Schizophrenia who has a service dog. Jinx is trained to bring different meds when alarms go off and is also trained to help in panic inducing situations by leading her owner away and even bodyblocking when necessary. She also has been trained to push a programmed button on a special phone that calls my friend's mother to alert her if my friend starts exhibiting certain symptoms.

Out in gen-pop Jinx and her handler are easily recognized as a service dog team, but for all anybody knows Jinx could be a seizure alert dog or could be helping with a balance disorder. I don't know many people that would feel uneasy renting to, living near, employing or even sitting next to a person with epilepsy or balance issues, but I do know TONS of people that would shy away and completely ostracize somebody who has schizophrenia.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Sweet jesus when did using medical equipment to be able to access public places become "special treatment"?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Just so nobody is confused, I deleted my quoted comment from CptJack...i read wrong and was hoping I had deleted it before it was responded to.

That said, what CptJack quoted is all that I said, so nothing important is missing from the conversation


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I do know TONS of people that would shy away and completely ostracize somebody who has schizophrenia.


Me too. It's very hard.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

sassafras said:


> Sweet jesus when did using medical equipment to be able to access public places become "special treatment"?


Perhaps people with anxiety and mobility issues or with epilepsy should just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and make do like the rest of us?

...sometimes for sh*ts and grins I like to kick people's canes out. They're probably a bunch of fakers anyway!


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

I'm still pretty much just seeing it along the same lines as handicapped parking. I don't think I ever said anything about a government agency.

As for 'special treatment', well, whether or not you want to call it that doesn't really matter I guess. Maybe call it 'special needs' if that makes you feel better.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

zhaor said:


> I'm still pretty much just seeing it along the same lines as handicapped parking. I don't think I ever said anything about a government agency.


Who do you want to pass out the license? Or verify the disability and that the dog is needed and a real service dog?


----------



## BubbaMoose (May 14, 2013)

Xeph said:


> Just so nobody is confused, I deleted my quoted comment from CptJack...


I've been lurking on this thread and find it super interesting; but haven't really had anything to say. Until now...

On an unrelated note, I just have to ask! How do you delete posts on here?! I've been a member for months and had no idea that was even possible. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I technically have an invisible disability.

When I am having a good day, you can't tell there's a thing wrong with me unless you're really looking for it. When I have a bad day? Well, I posted what it looks like when I have a bad day, and it isn't pretty.

Do you know what I've endured just in the last two days with my SD and SDIT?

Children barking at my dog
ADULTS barking at my dog
People rushing my dog
Adults pointing me out to their children "LOOK AT THE DOGGIE!" (friggin RUDE btw!)
People forcing themselves into my space to stare at my dog (I EXIST people, HELLO!)
People glaring at me when I tell them to please leave my dog alone, he is working
People thinking they have the RIGHT to know what is wrong with me. Since I'm not blind, I "shouldn't need a dog".
People asking me how they can get a service dog vest so they can travel more easily with their dog

Have I mentioned the people that bark at my freakin' dog?




> On an unrelated note, I just have to ask! How do you delete posts on here?! I've been a member for months and had no idea that was even possible.


Hit edit post, lower right hand corner there is a button that says "delete".



> Maybe call it 'special needs' if that makes you feel better.


We're already called that.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

CptJack said:


> Who do you want to pass out the license? Or verify the disability and that the dog is needed and a real service dog?


Who regulates handicapped placards?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

zhaor said:


> Who regulates handicapped placards?


The DMV. Don't think that'll work, here.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

but it can't be a government agency right?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Emmett said:


> Perhaps people with anxiety and mobility issues or with epilepsy should just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and make do like the rest of us?


Well, and you know what? Even if it was "special treatment" (WHICH IT IS NOT NOT NOT)... so what? If it make their life easier when a lot of their life is harder than mine, I'm not going to quibble about someone else being able to take their dog into Walmart when I can't, you know? 


Certification for service dogs is all about making life easier for employees of businesses, when everything about service animals should be about MAKING LIFE EASIER FOR DISABLED PEOPLE. It's not a service dog's handler's fault that businesses aren't properly educated about the law, don't properly train their employees, and are too scared to act within their rights.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Kayota said:


> It would be too easy for the government to decide that psychiatric problems like anxiety aren't real disabilities. That's one reason I can think of.


I'm going to be pretty blunt here. I have really bad anxiety, yeah it can make some things hard, I would never refer to it as a disability. Now I don't really think it's the governments place to make a judgement about that but when it comes down to it, if someone with anxiety is trying to get off saying they have a disability I think it's somewhat of an insult to people with serious mental issues.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Something I don't think you're understanding, zhaor, is that those of us that utilize service dogs are not getting better treatment than those who do not need to utilize a service dog. We are not better than "normal" people. All our SDs allow us to do is be more normal than we are without them.

Strauss allows me to walk, stand up, go to the bathroom, get out of bed. Things I struggle to do by myself now.

Loch will allow me to do all those things, and will also make it easier for me to pick things up (he is being trained to retrieve objects for me). That is normalcy, not a step above the rest.



> if someone with anxiety is trying to get off saying they have a disability I think it's somewhat of an insult to people with serious mental issues.


There is definitely anxiety that is severe enough to be declared a disability


----------



## Tacktheritrix (Jun 25, 2013)

Xeph said:


> Do the employees at the hotel ever ask what work the dog is trained to do to mitigate the disability of the handler? Most fakers can't answer that question.


Yes, we've asked. The most common answer seems to be seizures. I know service dogs exist for that reason, and maybe a few of them were legitimate, but actual service dogs aren't _that_ common. We get almost as many "service dogs" as we do normal pets. My favorite are the people who register their dogs at one of those fake websites, and whip out the certificate when they check in. 

We have had to evict a few pet rooms for excessive barking, but most of the problems aren't discovered until after the room is vacated. Honestly, messy rooms and destroyed furniture (which we can charge for, service dog or not) are the main issue, and animal-related noise complaints actually aren't all that common. We get more noise complaints about rooms with children than the pet rooms. Like I said, we ARE a pet friendly hotel, so the animals themselves aren't the true problem. They are allowed in the hotel. The problem is the irresponsible owners skipping out on the pet fee.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Does 'special treatment' have some kind of negative connotation that I'm not aware of? I'm not sure I see why people are so hung up on that term.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

zhaor said:


> but it can't be a government agency right?


...not how placards work, either. 

You're missing the part where, if they are treated as a prescription (as a generic thing, as placards are) then you need the government to pay for the dogs and training and ISSUE THE DOGS, not just the license for htem. If all you want is the doctor's note saying 'person should have a service dog' that's okay but it solves nothing. Because, quite frankly, it doesn't ensure any level of training of the dog. Which puts you right back at dogs barking through class because they're not trained. 

If you want them trained to standard and tested, then you're back to money and either only organization trained dogs or, you know, specifics of disabilities known because of what the dogs need to be trained to do.

HANDICAPPED PLACARDS DO NOT INVOLVE SPECIFICATION. It's a doctor's note that says they're warranted. Could be for autism, could be for MS, could be something else. THEN they are issued for free by the government. 

So, you want... to issue free dogs? Have a note from the doctor which proves the person has a disability but not that the dog's trained? Or the proof that hte dog's trained, which is the only one that will accomplish what you're looking for, but is completely unworkable?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Tacktheritrix said:


> Yes, we've asked. The most common answer seems to be seizures.


Nope. That's the wrong answer. They should be giving you a specific answer of what the dog does to HELP with seizures.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> The most common answer seems to be seizures.


But what is the dog TRAINED to do? Keyword here is trained.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

zhaor said:


> I'm not sure I see why people are so hung up on that term.


Because it's... not special treatment?


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I'm going to be pretty blunt here. I have really bad anxiety, yeah it can make some things hard, I would never refer to it as a disability. Now I don't really think it's the governments place to make a judgement about that but when it comes down to it, if someone with anxiety is trying to get off saying they have a disability I think it's somewhat of an insult to people with serious mental issues.


Perhaps you should talk with people who do have a serious anxiety disorder. It can be ABSOLUTELY crippling, people who don't leave their houses for YEARS, people who have panic attacks out in public that actually jeopardize their physical health and land them in ICU for days, people who do physical harm to themselves because the anxiety level is so high they can't cope any other way. Just like with many psychiatric disorders there are varying levels of severity and many people with anxiety do not qualify as "disabled" there are many others that do qualify as disabled and are unable to function in a reasonable manner without some sort of medical intervention...there are times where even this is not enough.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Emmett said:


> Perhaps you should talk with people who do have a serious anxiety disorder. It can be ABSOLUTELY crippling, people who don't leave their houses for YEARS, people who have panic attacks out in public that actually jeopardize their physical health and land them in ICU for days, people who do physical harm to themselves because the anxiety level is so high they can't cope any other way. Just like with many psychiatric disorders there are varying levels of severity and many people with anxiety do not qualify as "disabled" there are many others that do qualify as disabled and are unable to function in a reasonable manner without some sort of medical intervention...there are times where even this is not enough.


I could not leave my house for FIVE YEARS - not even to see my mother - because of panic disorder. The phone rang or a knock at the door and I hid in closets. That shit is NOT a joke. Did I get over it? No. I managed to get help after nearly dying. We're not talking nervous here (I know you know) we're talking incapacitated by random fear. Never mind the absolutely hellish physical effects of that.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

My anxiety isn't that severe (yet) but it's getting there. I have days where I walk outside to take out the trash and start crying because I'm outside. I am terrified of being a failure and constantly affect my relationships by being on edge about that, including work relationships with managers, coworkers and customers. I had to leave the vet tech program because I had a panic attack in front of clients. Anxiety affects people's lives in BIG ways. I spend most of my days feeling like the next person I see is going to attack me, if a middle aged man with a loud voice comes through my line forget it, I can barely speak. If a large group of kids or a screaming kid comes through my line forget it. The noise overwhelms me, between my asperger's and anxiety. Sometimes just the noise of my register beeping overwhelms me and makes me feel like I'm going to die. I get weak kneed and I'm begging for relief internally and I spend the whole day on the verge of breaking down. So yeah, saying that anxiety isn't a disability is bull.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I hear ya CptJack....I've gone to the hospital for anxiety attacks. My first one came when I was in the 3rd or 4th grade. Thought it was asthma, kept using my inhaler with no effect.

I am now on medication that helps control my anxiety...took a long time to get me ok with using meds after many an issue with medication. What I'm on now really helps, and even I notice how anxious I truly am if I miss too many doses (my threshold is about 3 doses before I start going nutters).


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

I'm going to the doctor for meds on Monday and I really hope I can get something that works. I feel so overwhelmed and tense all the time and I hate it. It's ruining my life.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Kayota said:


> I'm going to the doctor for meds on Monday and I really hope I can get something that works. I feel so overwhelmed and tense all the time and I hate it. It's ruining my life.


Meds are honestly amazing. They stop the cycle and can make... all the difference in the world.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

CptJack said:


> So, you want... to issue free dogs? Have a note from the doctor which proves the person has a disability but not that the dog's trained? Or the proof that hte dog's trained, which is the only one that will accomplish what you're looking for, but is completely unworkable?


The DMV isn't issuing free cars afaik. I never said it would solve all problems, just mentioned it as something similar really. Pretty much the simple hassle of it would deter some people. The threat of a fine would deter others.

Would be nice if they at least required some proof of basic obedience like maybe a CGC cert. I don't see why having some basic qualifications for the dog would be an issue.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

^^Absolutely.

I have gone from a pacing, growling, breathless mess to somebody that can pass (most days) as normal.

30 mg Cymbalta FTW. Been on that dosage, which is considered a loading dose, for a year now. The chances of me increasing the dosage are extremely small.



> The threat of a fine would deter others.


People can already be fined.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

Kayota said:


> I'm going to the doctor for meds on Monday and I really hope I can get something that works. I feel so overwhelmed and tense all the time and I hate it. It's ruining my life.


Good luck! I hope you are also able to see a therapist (of some sort), meds are rarely the answer by themselves. I used to bat around this saying with patients, "Meds make therapy possible. Therapy makes recovery possible."


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

I will try to mention Cymbalta to my doc. The depression med isn't really working as well as i'd like either but I don't know if that's a side effect of the anxiety. I have a suspicion it is though as I only get depressed when I've already been anxious for a good while. I'm seeing a therapist but she... spends most sessions talking about her grandkids and asking me for advice about her pets, so I'm looking for a new one. I think I'm derailing this thread though lol


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Emmett said:


> Good luck! I hope you are also able to see a therapist (of some sort), meds are rarely the answer by themselves. I used to bat around this saying with patients, "Meds make therapy possible. Therapy makes recovery possible."



This is pretty much down the line my story. I had to have the meds to not panic and shut down at the THOUGHT of therapy. They stopped me forming new associations to panic about. Therapy let me break the old associations. At this point most of the time I'm completely functional and living a much better life (with better behaved dogs) than I would have dreamed possible when this mess started.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Xeph said:


> People can already be fined.


So something like a fine does exist?

This was my original post before the discussion turned into how implementing anything of the sort would cause all sorts of issues. *shrug*



zhaor said:


> I don't know if there is anything but there should be some kind of law that at the very least imposes massive fines of the owners of fake service dogs. People will still do it of course but meh. Not much more you can reasonably do.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I gave up on anti depressants a long time ago. Mood stabilizers seem to be my friend.

And yes, fines already exist. They vary state to state.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

Xeph said:


> I gave up on anti depressants a long time ago. Mood stabilizers seem to be my friend.


I'm going to derail this train a little more...Cymbalta IS an antidepressant.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

No kidding? Huh. I really don't know that much about them. I'm on citalopram.


----------



## Flaming (Feb 2, 2013)

zhaor said:


> So something like a fine does exist?
> 
> This was my original post before the discussion turned into how implementing anything of the sort would cause all sorts of issues. *shrug*


I'm not sure about the U.S. but in most of Canada the fine for fake service dogs is about $3000


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

Kayota said:


> I'm on citalopram.


Which is also an antidepressant, but in a different class, it's an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) vs Cymbalta (duloxetine) which is an SNRI (serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor).


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Cymbalta IS an antidepressant.


Funky. My doc told me it was a mood stabilizer. That said, I don't really consider him very smart, sooooo....

First anti D that hasn't given me side effects that are TOO bad. Only helps with the anxiety, though...sucks at being an anti depressant  Maybe I just need to stay away from SSRI's


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Xeph said:


> Funky. My doc told me it was a mood stabilizer. That said, I don't really consider him very smart, sooooo....
> 
> First anti D that hasn't given me side effects that are TOO bad. Only helps with the anxiety, though...sucks at being an anti depressant  Maybe I just need to stay away from SSRI's


My first med was paxil. Not too bad on it. 

Coming off it? Worst experience of my LIFE.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

Xeph said:


> Funky. My doc told me it was a mood stabilizer. That said, I don't really consider him very smart, sooooo....


This just boils my blood. Before I _checked out_ professionally, psychopharmacology was my speciality. It takes very little effort and brain power for an MD (or PA) to keep these things straight and to intelligently convey the distinctions to a patient. How medical professionals expect their patients to ever take them seriously when they can't even provide the most fundamental info in an accurate and understandable fashion boggles my mind.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

If it helps, I don't take most mental healthcare workers seriously. We are not friends. I only go so I can get the medication I need.

Don't trust them, don't like them, and if I had my way, I'd have nothing to do with them at all.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> Another example of why people suck.
> 
> Yes, I'd love to be able to take my dog everywhere with me, but not at the expense of people with real disabilities who need their service animals to be accepted into places without a hassle.
> 
> Slightly off topic, but it also ticked me off to no end to see someone carrying their chihuahua into the grocery store without anyone giving her so much as a glance. Sometimes, it just sucks how differently "purse dogs" are treated than big dogs. I feel like the same rules should apply for both. If I can't take my huge beast dog with me shopping, why should you be able to take your pocket pooch? (But that's a whole other rant!)


I thought this way too, until I had one of the pocket pooches. It seems fair to say "a dog is a dog big or small", but when we start examining the actual concerns things look different. Dogs generally aren't allowed in stores because they might damage the merchandise, make a mess or scare other customers. A dog in a purse doesn't have the opportunity to do any of those things, it just doesn't make sense to treat them equivalently to their much larger counterparts.

Ideally, dogs of all sizes would be welcomed in stores, we do seem to be moving in that direction.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

That's my biggest issue with my therapist... She's outright stated she considers us friends multiple times, which is all well and good and I consider her the same way, but I think once that happens the professional relationship needs to be severed. Especially considering she barely knows what's going on with me.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

Xeph said:


> If it helps, I don't take most mental healthcare workers seriously. We are not friends. I only go so I can get the medication I need.
> 
> Don't trust them, don't like them, and if I had my way, I'd have nothing to do with them at all.


Nope. Doesn't help at all...in fact it makes things even worse. I'm guessing you hold this viewpoint because you've had various experiences with a myriad of undereducated, ill-equipped, unempathetic and downright ridiculous mental health professionals. You've now soured on the entire profession and that is a real, yet completely avoidable, shame. Mental health professionals deal with a population that often has VERY limited resources at their disposal. For many patients their therapist and doctor are simply _it_...priest, friend, advocate, advisor, shoulder to cry on, etc. and that means they have, in my opinion, a greater obligation to unwaveringly provide their _best_ standard of care day in and day out. This lesson hit home when I was literally the ONLY person who could be called upon to identify the body of a patient that I had been seeing for a few months. For this person 32 years of life boiled down to a person they had only met a half dozen times. So when mental health workers fall down on the job or get into the field because they couldn't cut the mustard anywhere else I just...well what I want to say is not PC. 

So, I deeply apologize for any and all poor experiences you have, or will have, and hope that your road to "recovery" (whatever that may look like for you) gets easier and smoother from here on out.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

Kayota said:


> That's my biggest issue with my therapist... She's outright stated she considers us friends multiple times, which is all well and good and I consider her the same way, but I think once that happens the professional relationship needs to be severed. Especially considering she barely knows what's going on with me.


Not "all well and good" and is actually a huge breach in ethics. That dynamic can be so detrimental to the therapeutic process as well as actually cause long lasting damage to the patient when the dynamic changes yet alone when the relationship is inevitably terminated. I urge you, as you've already suggested, to seek a healthier therapist-client relationship with a more qualified professional.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

I know it's a breach in the ethics. I'm breaking it off with her. It's been like this from day one and I'm not getting any real help from her. I'm going to see her on friend terms only from now and I'm certainly not going to pay for it any longer.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Emmett said:


> Not "all well and good" and is actually a huge breach in ethics. That dynamic can be so detrimental to the therapeutic process as well as actually cause long lasting damage to the patient when the dynamic changes yet alone when the relationship is inevitably terminated. I urge you, as you've already suggested, to seek a healthier therapist-client relationship with a more qualified professional.


Yeah. I had to change once because I realized I "liked" my therapist as a friend and they were telling me too much personal stuff about them and just generally not professional enough for me to work with. I started feeding them what I thought they wanted to hear. And getting anxious trying to figure that out, and wondering what they were thinking about me, and - 

Not helpful.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

She also allows her granddaughter to come in and hang out with us after I have repeatedly stated that I do NOT LIKE CHILDREN. Not to mention I don't want to have a THERAPY session in front of one. The more I think about it the more upset I am that I've been paying for this crap.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

aiw said:


> I thought this way too, until I had one of the pocket pooches. It seems fair to say "a dog is a dog big or small", but when we start examining the actual concerns things look different. Dogs generally aren't allowed in stores because they might damage the merchandise, make a mess or scare other customers. A dog in a purse doesn't have the opportunity to do any of those things, it just doesn't make sense to treat them equivalently to their much larger counterparts.
> 
> Ideally, dogs of all sizes would be welcomed in stores, we do seem to be moving in that direction.


I would say a dog in a purse still has the potential to do all those things. If it escapes...well enough said there. If it suddenly starts barking or has an accident it is disturbing customers around it. It does not take much dander to set off some severe allergic reactions. What about people who have severe dog phobias? Even well behaved pocket pooches peering out of purses can set off anxiety attacks. What if a child tries to pet the dog and gets bitten? In the litigious society we live in I could easily see someone trying to hold the store responsible for allowing the dog in. 

If a privately owned store wants to say only dogs under ___ lbs or in purses are allowed that is their prerogative, but to make a blanket statement that they _should_ be treated differently doesn't sit well with me.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

Kayota said:


> I know it's a breach in the ethics. I'm breaking it off with her. It's been like this from day one and I'm not getting any real help from her. I'm going to see her on friend terms only from now and I'm certainly not going to pay for it any longer.


Of course I don't know the dynamic, BUT I would say that you should not continue seeing this person in any setting after the termination of therapy. I don't think any relationship with a person who is abusing their professional position to this degree could ever be healthy for any party, but in particular you. Not to mention the ethical and moral compromises she has had to make in order to carry on the way you describe. Truthfully there are guidelines for situations like this (assuming she is a licensed therapist) and carrying on any social interaction with you would be breaking a number of them...at least for a set period of time. It boils down to this, she does not sound like a stable or ethical individual and cannot separate her professional and private lives even when she is legally required to...not the type of person I would advise anyone to socialize with.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

I will keep that in mind... I'm going to call her when I get up the courage and tell her I want to terminate the professional relationship. I also need to get my extra house key back from when she watched my dogs.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Emmett said:


> I would say a dog in a purse still has the potential to do all those things. If it escapes...well enough said there. If it suddenly starts barking or has an accident it is disturbing customers around it. It does not take much dander to set off some severe allergic reactions. What about people who have severe dog phobias? Even well behaved pocket pooches peering out of purses can set off anxiety attacks. What if a child tries to pet the dog and gets bitten? In the litigious society we live in I could easily see someone trying to hold the store responsible for allowing the dog in.
> 
> If a privately owned store wants to say only dogs under ___ lbs or in purses are allowed that is their prerogative, but to make a blanket statement that they _should_ be treated differently doesn't sit well with me.


Well, if a dog in a purse escapes... it is no longer a dog in a purse! I can see the sense in not allowing unconfined dogs in stores. Barking might be annoying, but there is no ban on cell phones or rowdy talk/behaviour in stores, they're generally pretty loud environments with music playing. 

If the allergy is severe enough that the presence of a confined dog feet away triggers a serious attack I wonder how they function in general society, same with the panic attack issue. Also, both problems could be triggered by _anything_. People are deathly allergic to perfumes, cleaning products and nuts. Those seem much more prevalent and generally serious than a deadly allergy to pet dander triggered without contact. Panic attacks can be triggered by bright lights or music. I sympathize with people who struggle with those issues, but its impossible to sanitize our whole world from any trigger or allergen for every person.

A dog in a purse is a significantly smaller risk for all those issues than perfume, music, or bright lights, none of which are banned in stores. 

Of course, as private property, stores can make whatever rules they choose and enforce them with whatever level of consistency they wish. I just think that regulations should be based in reason, and I haven't come across a good argument for the equivalency of a 100 lb German Shepherd and a 5 lb dog closed in a purse.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I'm guessing you hold this viewpoint because you've had various experiences with a myriad of undereducated, ill-equipped, unempathetic and downright ridiculous mental health professionals.


I have an issue with some of the "obligatory reporting" that must be done.

I do not share the notion that because someone is suicidal they should be locked up. I have never shared such a viewpoint, and no "ethical" therapist will share my feelings with me. Because of that, I will never see a therapist as someone to confide in. My feelings towards them will ALWAYS be adversarial, and there is no fixing that. Therapy is not for me due to mandatory reporting. I won't put myself in that position.

I answer the questions I need to answer in order to get my medications, and I leave.

I have a very hard time controlling my emotions, and don't often notice how I go from one extreme to another. But I am ALWAYS cognizant of how I am "ok" until I see my doctor, and then the moment I lay eyes on them I feel angry, on guard, and completely distrustful. I know that my emotions make me appear combative, when it is really not how I want to be. The feelings of mistrust and fury do not dissipate until I have left the office building.

/off topic


----------



## Aska (Jun 9, 2013)

Kayota said:


> A psychiatric service dog still has to be task trained and well behaved in public.


This. 

People often think psychiatric service dogs are a lot different and don't need to be really well behaved. People also seem to think they're not important. 

I've had a psychiatric service dog, and ignorant people were everywhere.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

aiw said:


> I sympathize with people who struggle with those issues, but its impossible to sanitize our whole world from any trigger or allergen for every person.


No, but it IS possible to just... not allow dogs in stores, and not take your dog to a store. It's a logical fallacy to state that because we can't protect against ALL allergens in a public place, we shouldn't try to protect against SOME of them.




> Of course, as private property, stores can make whatever rules they choose and enforce them with whatever level of consistency they wish. I just think that regulations should be based in reason, and I haven't come across a good argument for the equivalency of a 100 lb German Shepherd and a 5 lb dog closed in a purse.


Well beyond distraction training (which we're obviously not talking about and there are many other places and dog-friendly businesses to practice) I've yet to hear a good, compelling argument for why someone should be allowed to take their pet dog into a store beyond "BUT I WANNA."


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Xeph said:


> But how can you test beyond the basic sit, down, stand, stay, come? You can have three people with mobility dogs, and all three dogs are trained to mitigate the mobility disability of their handlers in different ways.
> 
> I have a friend who utilizes a guide dog. She is not blind. She has a sensory processing issue. The way her dog works is not exactly the same as how other guides work, though there are similarities.


Beyond basic obedience, which should be included, the handler could tell which tasks the dog performs. So each test could be tailored for the dog. They wouldn't have to disclose any information as to what disability the handler has, yet the dog could be registered appropriately. Just as in SAR, tests can be extremely affordable, classes and seminars are where costs add up. Often the test itself is $30-100. 

Just as the cgc is offered at pet stores, so could a service dog test, to keep it affordable and traveling to a minimum.


----------



## Vernitta (Aug 29, 2008)

Xeph said:


> I technically have an invisible disability.
> 
> When I am having a good day, you can't tell there's a thing wrong with me unless you're really looking for it. When I have a bad day? Well, I posted what it looks like when I have a bad day, and it isn't pretty.
> 
> ...


Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how is your dog being pointed out to children rude?


----------



## Vernitta (Aug 29, 2008)

This happens way too often here (SF bay area). 

Last year there was a guy in Fuddruckers carrying a small long-haired dog around. He was where you put your hamburger together when I saw him at first. I pointed it out to our waitress and she came back and told me the guy said it was a service animal. I would think someone that if it were a real service animal then it would've been perfectly fine waling on the floor and not sitting at the guys table. People are always bringing their dogs, puppies into stores in their arms. I just want to walk up to them and say, "Seriously!?"

A couple of weeks ago a guy had a doberman with him in Walmart. I doubt he was a service dog, because the guy kept barking at him to stay with him (his leash was trailing them on the floor, because the guy had his arms full of stuff). 

My sister lives in Oregon. She's having a hard time finding an apartment or house to rent, because they have two small dogs. She said they can't deny them if their dogs are service dogs so they got them "registered". I just want to smack my head.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but how is your dog being pointed out to children rude?


If I were in a wheelchair, would you loudly proclaim "Look at that wheelchair!"?

It's one thing when people are educating their children, it's quite another when people are calling attention to me with no point other than to show their child a dog. And then I have to fend off the child who wants to pet the doggie.

Not cool.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Emmett: 

I do have severe anxiety, what I don't have is a panic disorder or a phobia. I guess you could use the term to cover those. You could also use it to refer to OCD, which I also have. I don't, I would say I have anxiety and OCD. To me they're two completely different things and affect me in different ways.

If I was afraid to leave my house I wouldn't refer to it as anxiety. I would say I have a phobia because that's what that is. If I was having uncontrollable panic attacks I would say I have a panic disorder. 

It's all related to anxiety but it's not simply just referred to as anxiety. If someone has a severe panic disorder or phobia then by all means they should refer to themselves as disabled. I would not consider those things to be anything less then that. Those are truly debilitating things.

So, I'm sorry if you thought that I was referring to people who suffer from those things because I wasn't. I didn't realize people were using the term anxiety to refer to OCD, PTSD, panic disorders, and phobias. I use the term to just cover general anxiety and social anxiety because I don't really feel the word, even if adding severe before it, really does much to explain those other disorders. 

Taking this back to service dogs... PTSD is a serious and debilitating anxiety disorder. Again, I wouldn't really just refer to it as anxiety. 

Obviously that's serious and should be considered a disability, which it is, and in which service dogs, including "fake" ones, are commonly used. From some stuff I've read, there are apparently a lot of people with fake service dogs that claim to have PTSD. It's so despicable that anyone would lie about something like that.


----------



## Daenerys (Jul 30, 2011)

juliemule said:


> Beyond basic obedience, which should be included, the handler could tell which tasks the dog performs. So each test could be tailored for the dog. They wouldn't have to disclose any information as to what disability the handler has, yet the dog could be registered appropriately. Just as in SAR, tests can be extremely affordable, classes and seminars are where costs add up. Often the test itself is $30-100.
> 
> Just as the cgc is offered at pet stores, so could a service dog test, to keep it affordable and traveling to a minimum.


This is exactly what I was going to suggest. Have service dogs pass the CGC and then demonstrate their specifically trained tasks. The tests don't necessarily need to be standardized, or beyond the CGC even a test at all. I think it should be enough to just require a demonstration that the dog is indeed trained to do something specific to help their owner. That way, even handler trained dogs could be certified service dogs. This of course could still provide some challenges depending on what the dog is trained to do, since I am sure some things may be hard to demonstrate, but the dog doesn't have to demonstrate EVERYTHING they're trained to do, just something that would qualify it as a service dog.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

zhaor said:


> Well I mean if you want special treatment for having a disability, you kind of have to let people know you have a disability. I don't see why it should be a bigger deal than say...getting an handicapped parking permit.
> 
> Maybe I'm still misunderstanding something.


I don't really consider ADA accomodations "special treatment."

I have personal reason to be a bit nervous about giving the government any more information about citizens than they already have, primarily because I have particular knowledge about some of the information they ALREADY have due to my job. As we become more and more sophisticated in our ability to collect, maintain, and utilize personal information, it becomes easier and easier to abuse that information.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Emmett:
> 
> I do have severe anxiety, what I don't have is a panic disorder or a phobia. I guess you could use the term to cover those. You could also use it to refer to OCD, which I also have. I don't, I would say I have anxiety and OCD. To me they're two completely different things and affect me in different ways.
> 
> ...



Um. No. I was diagnosed by a medical professional. Phobia is a specific trigger. Panic Disorder is being afraid of panic attacks itself, which comes on regularly, in essence, and forming associations to places, things, and circumstances that caused the panic, and gradually having the world narrow.

A phobia is an entirely different thing. You can call it agoraphobia if you want, but it's inaccurate because it's not afraid of going out. It's crippling physical reaction of your body going haywire in terrifying ways and then becoming afraid of it happening again. Same sort of association as happens with a dog, with negative reenforcement and the PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL reactions continuing. In short, the physical reaction happens with very little reason and it grows. Frankly, panic attacks aren't fear of some specific thing - which is kind of vital for a phobia to be in play. By the time I was at my worst I was having panic attacks at: 

Anyone at the door. 
The phone ringing.
Having to talk to anyone who didn't live with me.
Being seen by anyone who didn't live with me.
Loud noises, in general. 
Florescent lights. 
The smell of antiseptic. 
That something (unspecified) bad would happen to the house if I left it. 
Dogs barking. 
Sirens, in particular
Cars - period. 
Not having my phone in reach. 
Being alone. 
And sleeping.

The list goes on. ANY of those things would tip me off into fullblown panic attacks - because I'd had a panic attack at some point in those circumstances that were SO BAD they became terrifying by association. That's not a phobia. That's a mental disorder. Panic disorder, as a matter of fact.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

aiw said:


> I thought this way too, until I had one of the pocket pooches. It seems fair to say "a dog is a dog big or small", but when we start examining the actual concerns things look different. Dogs generally aren't allowed in stores because they might damage the merchandise, make a mess or scare other customers. A dog in a purse doesn't have the opportunity to do any of those things, it just doesn't make sense to treat them equivalently to their much larger counterparts.
> 
> Ideally, dogs of all sizes would be welcomed in stores, we do seem to be moving in that direction.


Sorry...I just don't agree. I don't agree with some dogs being treated completely differently because of size or breed.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> Sorry...I just don't agree. I don't agree with some dogs being treated completely differently because of size or breed.



Yeah, ditto. I mean, yeah, some dogs are more portable and I don't mind if stores want to use a weight limit or a rule that's effectively 'no dogs on the floor' and if you can figure out how to work that out with your 100lb dog in the cart or carry it, but people ignoring the rules are just dumb. The justification and entitlement involved in 'but it's only a LITTLE dog' makes my eyes cross.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

aiw said:


> Well, if a dog in a purse escapes... it is no longer a dog in a purse! I can see the sense in not allowing unconfined dogs in stores. Barking might be annoying, but there is no ban on cell phones or rowdy talk/behaviour in stores, they're generally pretty loud environments with music playing.
> 
> If the allergy is severe enough that the presence of a confined dog feet away triggers a serious attack I wonder how they function in general society, same with the panic attack issue. Also, both problems could be triggered by _anything_. People are deathly allergic to perfumes, cleaning products and nuts. Those seem much more prevalent and generally serious than a deadly allergy to pet dander triggered without contact. Panic attacks can be triggered by bright lights or music. I sympathize with people who struggle with those issues, but its impossible to sanitize our whole world from any trigger or allergen for every person.
> 
> ...


I guess I feel like I, as the owner of a dog, albeit a big dog, should have the same rights and privileges as the owner of a comparably trained and behaved 5 lb dog. Yes, the dogs themselves are different, but I chose mine and they chose theirs. If a store clearly says no pets, then it should apply equally to both dog owners.


----------



## LoMD13 (Aug 4, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> Our Lowes and Home Depot have signs saying pets aren't allowed, but I've found that as long as a dog is well-behaved and you keep control of them? The employees love having them visit. Same with feed stores and pet stores as well as our local biker leather store, which also sells Schutzhund supplies since the owners are Malinois owners in one of the clubs.
> 
> There are times I'd love to be able to take my dog in with me for a quick errand rather than leave him in the truck, particularly if it's really hot or, up here, bitterly cold. However, I understand that there are lots of places that dogs in general aren't really appropriate. I still think though, if a store only allows service animals, that no exception should be made based on the size of the dog. If my large non-service dog isn't permitted, no non-service purse dogs should be permitted, either.


Arn't you kind of doing the exact same thing as your complaining about by taking your dog into Lowes, Home Depot etc. Dogs arn't allowed, but some stores don't mind so you take him. Some stores don't mind little dogs coming in.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

LoMD13 said:


> Arn't you kind of doing the exact same thing as your complaining about by taking your dog into Lowes, Home Depot etc. Dogs arn't allowed, but some stores don't mind so you take him. Some stores don't mind little dogs coming in.


Those stores openly allow all dogs in, regardless of size or breed, as long as they are well-behaved. Now, if they specifically only allowed big dogs and didn't allow small dogs or if I just disregarded their store policy and brought in my dog because, "It's just a big dog," then yes, you would have a valid argument.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

CptJack said:


> Um. No. I was diagnosed by a medical professional. Phobia is a specific trigger. Panic Disorder is being afraid of panic attacks itself, which comes on regularly, in essence, and forming associations to places, things, and circumstances that caused the panic, and gradually having the world narrow.
> 
> A phobia is an entirely different thing. You can call it agoraphobia if you want, but it's inaccurate because it's not afraid of going out. It's crippling physical reaction of your body going haywire in terrifying ways and then becoming afraid of it happening again. Same sort of association as happens with a dog, with negative reenforcement and the PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL reactions continuing. In short, the physical reaction happens with very little reason and it grows. Frankly, panic attacks aren't fear of some specific thing - which is kind of vital for a phobia to be in play.


Panic disorder is NOT being afraid of panic attacks. 

"Panic disorder is different from the normal fear and anxiety reactions to stressful events in our lives. Panic disorder is a serious condition that strikes without reason or warning. Symptoms of panic disorder include sudden attacks of fear and nervousness, as well as physical symptoms such as sweating and a racing heart. During a panic attack, the fear response is out of proportion for the situation, which often is not threatening. Over time, a person with panic disorder develops a constant fear of having another panic attack, which can affect daily functioning and general quality of life."

"Beyond the panic attacks themselves, a key symptom of panic disorder is the persistent fear of having future panic attacks. "

So no, panic disorder is not a fear of panic attacks. It is, basically, someone suffering from panic attacks that can also lead to a fear of panic attacks which isn't really suprising.
http://www.webmd.com/anxiety-panic/guide/mental-health-panic-disorder


I honestly can't say what you are dealing with but if you suffer from severe panic attacks then you don't just have anxiety. You have a panic disorder. 


If you're afraid to leave your house that's not just anxiety. I would say that type of fear, to the point it last for 5 years, is caused by a phobia. Maybe more then one. 

I'm horrible in social situations and I need someone with me when I go places or I get really paranoid. If it escalates and I start having a fear of entering any stores or going out or leaving my house then I would consider that a phobia. I have a severe anxiety, possibly fear of social interaction. It just hasn't escalated to such a point that I'm literally so scared that I'm not leaving my house. So it's not on the level of a phobia. I would say not leaving your house for five years, there's defiantly something more to that then just anxiety.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Did. You read your own post?

*"Beyond the panic attacks themselves, a key symptom of panic disorder is the persistent fear of having future panic attacks. "*

Or read mine?



> t's crippling physical reaction of your body going haywire in terrifying ways and then becoming afraid of it happening again.


I didn't say you became afraid of the panic attack before you had one. I said part of it was becoming afraid of having another one, and then everything associated with it. A HUGE part of therapy is breaking those associations, once meds give you control of the panic attacks themselves. You calling it a PHOBIA is just - inaccurate and frankly ignorant. 

I know exactly what I was dealt with, thanks to professional help and diagnosis and YEARS of both, thanks.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I love it when a stranger on the internet argues with another stranger on the internet about their own medical diagnosis, which was diagnosed by professionals that have actually met the person.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> I love it when a stranger on the internet argues with another stranger on the internet about their own medical diagnosis, which was diagnosed by professionals that have actually met the person.


Yeah. It's special.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

No I'm sorry cptJack, I only read the first part of your post before you edited it. I was responding to what I had quoted.

Okay, so you have a panic disorder. I wasn't specifically referring to your fear of leaving the house. I was talking in general. If you weren't leaving your house because of panic attacks, which you mentioned Is referred to Agoraphobia, that that might be different then why someone else wouldn't. 

I have severe social anxiety. If I stop leaving my house it'll be because of social phobia not because I have a panic disorder.

Either way, I just realized, you missed the whole point of what I was saying. I wouldn't just refer to a panic disorder as anxiety. Not even severe anxiety. It's more then that. Just as I wouldn't refer to OCD or PTSD as anxiety. 

So when I wrote my first post I didn't realize the term anxiety was being used to refer to those things and that's all I was trying to say. I do think panic disorder is more serious then just severe anxiety and I don't feel that just referring to anxiety explains it well.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> I love it when a stranger on the internet argues with another stranger on the internet about their own medical diagnosis, which was diagnosed by professionals that have actually met the person.


Aheheh, me too.


As for calling something "just" anxiety... if I am speaking to someone about my anxiety disorder, I am not always inclined to share nor is another person always interested in hearing every tiny detail of my symptoms or doctor's diagnosis. So I say "anxiety" or "anxiety disorder" to move the conversation along. It doesn't really concern me whether someone else thinks I am being precise enough in casual conversation for someone else to think I warrant the treatment I'm getting. I'm fortunate not to have experienced the level of life-alteringly debilitating symptoms that others have, but I do not have "just" an anxiety disorder for crying out loud. 

Also... anxiety and depression are different for different people. What is the quote, "We do not see things as they are, we see things as WE are." Jesus just let people have THEIR experiences with anxiety.


----------



## Vernitta (Aug 29, 2008)

Xeph said:


> If I were in a wheelchair, would you loudly proclaim "Look at that wheelchair!"?
> 
> It's one thing when people are educating their children, it's quite another when people are calling attention to me with no point other than to show their child a dog. And then I have to fend off the child who wants to pet the doggie.
> 
> Not cool.


Well, I wouldn't loudly proclaim anything, but I'm sure my children would notice the wheelchair. I would explain what it was and I'm sure my kids would think it was cool. My children would definitely notice your dog simply because it's a german shepherd and that's their favorite breed right now. But, like the wheelchair I would explain that your dog was working and that it helps you. My children have seen a service dog before and know they can't pet them. They also know they can't pet every animal they see. 

I can understand how you would be offended by someone loudly drawing attention you or your situation. May apologize for all the clueless parents out there?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Vernitta said:


> Well, I wouldn't loudly proclaim anything, but I'm sure my children would notice the wheelchair. I would explain what it was and I'm sure my kids would think it was cool. My children would definitely notice your dog simply because it's a german shepherd and that's their favorite breed right now. But, like the wheelchair I would explain that your dog was working and that it helps you. My children have seen a service dog before and know they can't pet them. They also know they can't pet every animal they see.
> 
> I can understand how you would be offended by someone loudly drawing attention you or your situation. May apologize for all the clueless parents out there?


I'll admit, my kids would probably be excited to see a GSD. They'd know not to approach it, but they'd likely admire from afar. I'll also admit that I have pointed out service dogs to my kids before, particularly when I was teaching them about how not to approach or distract someone's service animal. I never thought about it being rude, but I do see the point now that it could have been seen that way by the handler. I'll definitely keep this in mind in the future!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Well, I wouldn't loudly proclaim anything, but I'm sure my children would notice the wheelchair. I would explain what it was and I'm sure my kids would think it was cool. My children would definitely notice your dog simply because it's a german shepherd and that's their favorite breed right now. But, like the wheelchair I would explain that your dog was working and that it helps you. My children have seen a service dog before and know they can't pet them. They also know they can't pet every animal they see.
> 
> I can understand how you would be offended by someone loudly drawing attention you or your situation. May apologize for all the clueless parents out there?


Yeah, how you describe how you would personally handle the situation is totally acceptable. And I KNOW people notice the dog. That's totally ok. Parents that call attention to my dog and then EXPLAIN why he's in the store are totally a-ok in my book.

I just REALLY hate it and find it extremely rude when parents poke their young children and go "Look honey! Look at the doggie!" They don't explain what the dog is for AT ALL, they just point out my dog and call attention to me (because other people also turn and look). That is uncomfortable and embarrassing. There's no need for that.



> I never thought about it being rude


It's not if you're using it as a moment of education  Again, I'm only speaking of the parents that act like my dog is in some sort of zoo exhibit.


----------



## Kevin T (Apr 22, 2013)

Keechak said:


> That would be hard to pass, because it would require discrimination against the disabled. Imagine having to wait at the door until your ID is checked to allow you into an establishment...


You mean like having to prove your age before entering a club? 

I don't think anyone is suggestiing that disabled people should have to wait at a store entrance until someone with authority is finally made available to verify their service dog's certification. (I apologize if I missed someone's suggestion to that effect)

I would have no problem with a requirement to be able to produce a certificate upon request. If a manager asks while you're in the establishment, simply show your card...just like you might have to show ID when purchasing an adult beverage.

It's not discrimination if everyone has to follow the same rules. In this case, the rule would require patrons to be able to show a certificate when asked in order to have a service dog in certan places...just like it's not discrimination if everyone must show ID in order to vote.

I imagine most opponents of such a rule are concerned about their privacy. I don't blame them for not wanting to discuss the details of their disability with strangers just to buy a bar of soap. 

That's a solveable problem, though. The service dog certification or registration card wouldn't need to identify the disability for which the dog is needed. Naturally, this would have to be different from a certification provided by the agency that trained or tested the dog--which would obviously identify what disability the dog is trained to mitigate.

Maybe people wouldn't feel like they have to go to such lengths and compromise their personal integrity if there weren't so many restrictions against taking pets into businesses. We lived in Germany for twelve years; it was great to see so many well behaved dogs in so many places our dogs can't go. Sadly, the typical North American dog isn't well enough trained to be taken into restaurants, etc.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Kevin T said:


> It's not discrimination if everyone has to follow the same rules.


Last time I checked, I didn't have to show a card every time I entered a business. If a service dog owner had to, then they would not be following the same rules as me.

If I were wearing a leg brace, I wouldn't want to be stopped and forced to provide proof that I actually needed my medical equipment. A service dog is medical equipment.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Emmett:
> 
> I do have severe anxiety, what I don't have is a panic disorder or a phobia. I guess you could use the term to cover those. You could also use it to refer to OCD, which I also have. I don't, I would say I have anxiety and OCD. To me they're two completely different things and affect me in different ways.
> 
> ...


OCD, PTSD, phobia(s), Panic Disorder, etc are ALL classified as *ANXIETY DISORDERS*...so when somebody says they have "anxiety" they could, conceivably, be referring to any and ALL of those with various levels of severity. As Sass has pointed out many people will use "anxiety" as shorthand because A) it's an easily understood concept and they don't want to get into explaining the nuances if their disorder to every passerby and B) the specifics of their illness are frankly nobody's darn business. If you want to refer to "just anxiety" you can also throw in GAD (Generalized Anxiety Disorder) which is pretty much as it sounds and can be "just" as debilitating as any of the "serious" disorders you have singled out. 

This is not the time or place for me to outline the stratification of psychiatric diagnostics and how easily "clinical" and "laymen" concepts and words can parallel and contradict each other, but I should explain that you are attempting to argue with a *former* medical professional who not only worked in the research field but also treated hundreds of patients with these (and other disorders) for many years.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Yep GAD is what I have... Not that my therapist is all that great, but that's my diagnosis as of right now.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

GAD/SAD here


----------



## Flaming (Feb 2, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> Last time I checked, I didn't have to show a card every time I entered a business. If a service dog owner had to, then they would not be following the same rules as me.
> 
> If I were wearing a leg brace, I wouldn't want to be stopped and forced to provide proof that I actually needed my medical equipment. A service dog is medical equipment.


I get enough harassment for actually using a cane at my age when I enter certain establishments or come across certain types of people. I truly believe that if they could request that I show a card then it would get much worse. And I will eventually benefit from a dog but I would rather self train because of a few abnormalities in my condition that would make a gov trained dog more than useless, some tasks have to be altered to fit me or become potentially dangerous and I'm sure that they would want to refuse certs for a owner trained dog. 

There is already an optional cert card in some provinces of Canada but you need dogs trained by a certain school in order to get it. Also since there are no schools like that within reasonable access of my home or many places in Canada and the U.S. (think rural) this certification requirement would be leaving out many people who would benefit from a dog.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Xeph said:


> GAD/SAD here


I suspect I have mild SAD as well due to my reaction to interacting with anyone these days... My managers telling me I talk too much and people reporting me for stuff I didn't say and ignoring everything I say really didn't help :\ I barely speak at work now for fear of getting in trouble. Sometimes I still talk to people when I'm just out and about but on a bad day just being near strangers makes me freak out internally.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

Kevin T said:


> You mean like having to prove your age before entering a club?
> 
> I don't think anyone is suggestiing that disabled people should have to wait at a store entrance until someone with authority is finally made available to verify their service dog's certification. (I apologize if I missed someone's suggestion to that effect)
> 
> ...





Daenerys said:


> This is exactly what I was going to suggest. Have service dogs pass the CGC and then demonstrate their specifically trained tasks. The tests don't necessarily need to be standardized, or beyond the CGC even a test at all. I think it should be enough to just require a demonstration that the dog is indeed trained to do something specific to help their owner. That way, even handler trained dogs could be certified service dogs. This of course could still provide some challenges depending on what the dog is trained to do, since I am sure some things may be hard to demonstrate, but the dog doesn't have to demonstrate EVERYTHING they're trained to do, just something that would qualify it as a service dog.


One problem with these concepts is that they are not treating all disabilities equally. People who use non-organic mobility assistance devices would not be required to provide "proof" of their need for this equipment. You're creating a "special category" of disabled people that are required to jump through more hoops in order to gain access to and utilize their medical equipment. Which is a legal no-no!

When you create such a certification process you are also going to have to clearly formalize who qualifies for a service dog. Which means categorically identifying which disorders and disabilities merit a service dog, spelling out which tasks are acceptable and determining what level of severity is required. The questions then become: who comes up with these guidelines, how are they applied to the certification process, what does the process look like, what kind of appeal process, how would testing be fairly implemented in a country as diverse and spread out as the US, who would perform the testing, etc.? 

Last but not least, you would also create a database that associates a person's disability with their biographical information. Would this database be maintained by a private or governmental agency? How would this federally protected data be safeguarded? What are the ramifications if this data were compromised or ill-used? Our government is already being scrutinized for all sorts of questionable use of the data they have already compiled on each of us...imagine if they now had unfettered access to your medical records. Also imagine if a private entity held all this information and was not bound by the medical code of ethics (like hospitals and doctor's offices). They would in a position to _possibly_ sell or otherwise decimate medical information that could have a HUGE impact on your day to day survival. 

If I felt the population as a whole were more trustworthy my trepidation at this prospect would be lessened, but just tell your neighbor a _secret_ and see how fast the whole neighborhood hears about it. I don't want anybody but my medical team and I having access to any of my medical information.

ETA: I would not be opposed to a system that required a service dog to undergo a behavioral assessment/obedience evaluation. I'm thinking of something akin to the CGC just to make sure they are trained to behave and be safe in public, but the system would have to be something where the handler's disability is in no way linked to the dog's certification. It would be the same as testing other medical equipment to make sure it is functional and safe to use.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

sassafras said:


> No, but it IS possible to just... not allow dogs in stores, and not take your dog to a store. It's a logical fallacy to state that because we can't protect against ALL allergens in a public place, we shouldn't try to protect against SOME of them.
> 
> 
> > Sure, but typically we would try to protect against the more serious and prevalent ones. I can honestly say I've never heard of anyone who would have a serious anaphylactic reaction to a confined dog without any contact. I suppose its possible I just haven't run across any, but I find it unlikely its a massive concern and I've _never_ heard about it. Nuts are generally more serious and IME more sensitive, but we don't ban the sale of nuts anywhere except specifically marked establishments. In short, I'm not convinced the threat of harm from taking a dog in a purse inside a store is very serious. Certainly less serious than allowing dogs in public places in general.
> ...


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Emmett said:


> When you create such a certification process you are also going to have to clearly formalize who qualifies for a service dog. Which means categorically identifying which disorders and disabilities merit a service dog, spelling out which tasks are acceptable and determining what level of severity is required. The questions then become: who comes up with these guidelines, how are they applied to the certification process, what does the process look like, what kind of appeal process, how would testing be fairly implemented in a country as diverse and spread out as the US, who would perform the testing, etc.?


And also... everybody who is willing to pay higher taxes to institute and operate the governing body that would oversee this please raise their hands. 

Yea, I didn't think so. Regulations are all well and good, but someone has to pay for enforcing them.

Honestly most of these problems could be addressed by businesses just learning their rights under the law, properly training their employees, and not being afraid to exercise their rights. But I guess instead of making a few people uncomfortable we should pile some more burdens on the plates of service dog owners. :/



> But, beyond a service dog "WELL I WANT IT" is the reason any of our dogs exist and participate in any of the activities they do. Its the reason why most people do most things. Its also generally accepted that wanting to is a good enough reason to do something unless there are specific concerns which stand in the way. The requirement should be a reason to ban an action, not a reason to make it legal/acceptable.


Justification: A heck of a drug. :/


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Emmett, 

I understand they're classified as anxiety disorders. I just wasn't thinking of such disorders when I wrote my first comment. So I wasn't thinking about people with phobias or panic disorders. I was just thinking general anxiety because that's usually what I associate the word anxiety with. So I was just clarifying that and it was my mistake to have not thought of it being used to represent more serious disorders. 

Personally, I know OCD is an anxiety disorder but when I explain it to people I know I don't say I have anxiety and then go on to explain all my symptoms of OCD. In my mind they're two different things even though they're both anxiety disorders. I have GAD and really bad SAD and the feelings associated with both are much more similar.

I don't even associate the fact that I feel the need to brush my hair in counts if nine as anxiety. I do things in 3, 6, 9 counts because they're "magic" numbers and I've become obsessive about it. If I don't do it I have a bad hair day, I swear it always happens lol. I'm sure my anxiety had caused me to be easily obsessive but I view them as separate. It's really not all that serious. I just count while I do things and I have to finish things at a certain count and it's all good. I know some OCD can be REALLY bad so I'm not complaining.

So again, it's just the way I think about it. I wasn't thinking about serious disorders. I was thinking just general anxiety and idk maybe in some cases it could be considered a disability. I honestly think in most cases if someone is going to be disabled by anxiety it's going to be because of an actual "series" disorder. Unless I had severe OCD or something like panic disorders I personally wouldn't feel right about calling my anxiety a disability.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I honestly think in most cases if someone is going to be disabled by anxiety it's going to be because of an actual "series" disorder. Unless I had severe OCD or something like panic disorders I personally wouldn't feel right about calling my anxiety a disability.


Anxiety CAN BE an "actual" serious disorder. 

And whether YOUR anxiety is severe enough to be called a disorder has nothing whatsoever to do with whether someone else's anxiety is severe enough to be called a disorder.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

sassafras said:


> Justification: A heck of a drug. :/


I doubt you'd respond that way if we were discussing banning something you wanted without reason. Mushing, for example. I'm pretty certain that if I suggested a blanket ban on it you'd want some sort of justification for it. Something which went beyond me saying "the only reason to have mushing dogs is 'WELL I WANNA'".


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

sassafras said:


> Anxiety CAN BE an "actual" serious disorder.
> 
> And whether YOUR anxiety is severe enough to be called a disorder has nothing whatsoever to do with whether someone else's anxiety is severe enough to be called a disorder.


Yep. Total sliding scale. You know when it crosses the line? When the person suffering is impacted enough that their daily lives are negatively impacted. 

We are not talking 'a case of the nerves' here.



aiw said:


> I doubt you'd respond that way if we were discussing banning something you wanted without reason. Mushing, for example. I'm pretty certain that if I suggested a blanket ban on it you'd want some sort of justification for it. Something which went beyond me saying "the only reason to have mushing dogs is 'WELL I WANNA'".


I doubt it. Sass isn't someone I see regularly breaking rules that negatively impacting other people because she wants to. I mean, honestly, that's what it comes down to. Your rights to do what you want stop where someone else's nose starts.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

What are you talking about? I'm not even talking about referring to it as a disorder or not. I'm talking about what would constitute being referred to as a disability. 

It's not that I don't think anxiety can be serious. It's about being disabled. Not just needing medication but literally not being able to function like a normal person. Not being able to work. Whatever. 

If I can get myself some medical herb for being disabled and having anxiety, then yeah I'm disabled. Why not. Seriously I'm over this. If you feel the need to attack me for everything I say and take everything I'm saying personally like I'm even taking about anyone but myself which I want then screw this. Think what you want.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Emmett said:


> OCD, PTSD, phobia(s), Panic Disorder, etc are ALL classified as *ANXIETY DISORDERS*...so when somebody says they have "anxiety" they could, conceivably, be referring to any and ALL of those with various levels of severity. As Sass has pointed out many people will use "anxiety" as shorthand because A) it's an easily understood concept and they don't want to get into explaining the nuances if their disorder to every passerby and B) the specifics of their illness are frankly nobody's darn business. If you want to refer to "just anxiety" you can also throw in GAD (Generalized Anxiety Disorder) which is pretty much as it sounds and can be "just" as debilitating as any of the "serious" disorders you have singled out.
> 
> This is not the time or place for me to outline the stratification of psychiatric diagnostics and how easily "clinical" and "laymen" concepts and words can parallel and contradict each other, but I should explain that you are attempting to argue with a *former* medical professional who not only worked in the research field but also treated hundreds of patients with these (and other disorders) for many years.



Thank you. That's all I've got here - just thanks.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

aiw said:


> I doubt you'd respond that way if we were discussing banning something you wanted without reason. Mushing, for example. I'm pretty certain that if I suggested a blanket ban on it you'd want some sort of justification for it. Something which went beyond me saying "the only reason to have mushing dogs is 'WELL I WANNA'".


Oh, lord, really? You're making this comparison?

Enough people think that dogs create enough of a disruption in stores that most store owners choose not to allow them _on their private property_ (barring legally protected classes such as service dogs). They don't need any more of a reason than "my other customers don't like it" or even "I don't like dogs and don't want them in here" or "I don't want someone's dog getting hair on my merchandise." 

There is no comparison to banning mushing. A valid comparison would be if an individual, government, or business banned me from mushing _on their property_, which they are perfectly free to do and in fact DO do. There are designated skijoring and designated dog-free trails at the park where I skijor. So I skijor on the skijoring trails and stay off the skier-only trails. It's not that hard for a grown-up to realize that just because something is nice for MEMEMEME that other people might not appreciate my dogs tromping all over their ski trails (or getting hair on their merchandise or scaring their other customers).


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

xoxluvablexox said:


> It's not that I don't think anxiety can be serious. It's about being disabled. Not just needing medication but literally not being able to function like a normal person. Not being able to work. Whatever.


Anxiety - yes, "just" anxiety - CAN be disabling. I don't get why this is such a difficult concept.


----------



## Kevin T (Apr 22, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> Last time I checked, I didn't have to show a card every time I entered a business. If a service dog owner had to, then they would not be following the same rules as me.


Actually, if the rule was "Be prepared to show documentation for service animals if asked", you'd be following exactly the same rule. Persons not accompanied by a service dog would never be asked, and if I had it my way, _*nobody *_would be asked as long as their dog wasn't causing a disruption.

This is similar to a rule against taking unpaid for merchandise into store restrooms. That rule would apply to everyone, both those who do and those who do not take merchandise into the restroom.

I wrote earlier "I don't think anyone is suggestiing that disabled people should have to wait at a store entrance until someone with authority is finally made available to verify their service dog's certification." 

Perhaps I should have added "I'm certainly not suggesting it, either.", but I thought that was implied.

"I would have no problem with a requirement to be able to produce a certificate *upon request*." 

*"If a manager asks while you're in the establishment*, simply show your card...just like you might have to show ID when purchasing an adult beverage. 

(emphasis added)

Maybe I was unclear here as well. I know I didn't elaborate enough if I gave the impression that I advocate any sort of certification check prior to entering any business. I was only suggesting people should be prepared to provide documentation if asked. And I would add that this should be a rare situation in cases where alleged service animals cause a disruption or hazard.

If a claimed service dog is causing an issue, it oughtn't be too big of a problem to be asked for documentation that the dog is an actual service dog. The registration card or certificate or whatever wouldn't need to identify a specific disability.

I think this could be accomplished by some sort of official registry--perhaps by whatever agency registers all dogs, or maybe by the state office that issues personal ID...wich is the department of motor vehicles, in most places. There would be costs to run whatever agency administers the program. But with all the money we pay people not to work these days, maybe some of these people can be put to work staffing such an agency.



Crantastic said:


> ...wearing a leg brace, I wouldn't want to be stopped and forced to provide proof that I actually needed my medical equipment. A service dog is medical equipment.


In what way could a leg brace ever endanger or inconvenience another patron? (not that I think your dog would, but that seems to be the concern about having uncertified dogs in public places)

Believe me, I'm all for increasing access for dogs in public places--especially service dogs. 

The issue raised in the OP was non-disabled dog owners claiming their dogs are service dogs when they're not. It seems to me that there's a choice of whether we want to try to curb this despicable behavior or just accept it as inevitable.

I know I'm not an authority on the subject. My (relatively minor) disability isn't one that can be facilitated by a service animal, so I don't have any skin in this particular game. I do know that I wouldn't want my disability annouonced whenever I go into public. It just galls me that people are abusing the system and making it more difficult for actual service dogs and their handlers. If I were personally affected, though, I imagine I would want something done about it.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

It can be VERY difficult for people who aren't disabled to understand and empathize with the disabled. It's similar to how it can be very difficult for someone of a privileged majority to understand and empathize with a minority. We often are blind to our own privilege.

I know it can be a challenge for me, but it's helped having friends and family members who were, unfortunately disabled in one way or another. It starts when you stop judging and start trying to understand what their dailynlife is like and how different even relatively simple and common situations can be.

Just getting groceries, getting to an appointment, or making a phone call, things I do without thinking much about, can require extensive planning and anxiety for someone whobis disabled. Getting dressed, brushing my teeth, making breakfast...I can do most of these things quickly and without much thought. If I was disabled that might beca significant challenge...and my day would have barely begun.

Then there's the other "stuff." As an abled, healthy person, I can assume that I will be able to go and do almost whatever I want and do it without being stared at, commented on, or receiving intrusive questions or unsolicited comments about my appearance or behavior. I can safely assume most public places will be comfortable and welcoming to me and that, in general, I will be left to go about my business. I can expect my rights to privacy and personal space will be respected and that I won't be treated with pity or scorn.

Those are all things a disabled person can't take for granted...and there's a lot more, like being viewed less competant at work or less valued.

So...let 'em have the dang dog already. If a dog can be trained to help even the playing field for them, to help them have a life more similar to mine, I'm happy to accomodate them even where my dog can't go. I love my dog, but I don't need him in the same way they need theirs.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

The problem here is that as far as legality is concerned there is no difference between the dog and a leg brace. The dog is a piece of necessary medical equipment. In order to apply it to everyone, then yeah. You have to make a rule saying that any medical equipment and devices must be accompanied by a certificate. There's a reason that's not okay, and those reasons are still there even if the equipment has fur and four legs.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

CptJack said:


> The problem here is that as far as legality is concerned there is no difference between the dog and a leg brace. The dog is a piece of necessary medical equipment. In order to apply it to everyone, then yeah. You have to make a rule saying that any medical equipment and devices must be accompanied by a certificate. There's a reason that's not okay, and those reasons are still there even if the equipment has fur and four legs.


Quoted for truth. Excellent response


----------



## skitty56 (Jan 22, 2012)

Kevin T said:


> Actually, if the rule was "Be prepared to show documentation for service animals if asked", you'd be following exactly the same rule. Persons not accompanied by a service dog would never be asked, and if I had it my way, _*nobody *_would be asked as long as their dog wasn't causing a disruption.
> 
> This is similar to a rule against taking unpaid for merchandise into store restrooms. That rule would apply to everyone, both those who do and those who do not take merchandise into the restroom.
> 
> ...


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

And the statement about requiring SD users carry "registration" being the same as being carded at a bar? Not at all the same. For one thing, if you CHOOSE to go to a bar, having your ID checked is something EVERYBODY will go through at some point. There is no discrimination. And going to a bar (or club, or whatever with an age restriction) is not something that is NECESSARY for survival. It's entertainment.

Going to get groceries is something we ALL have to do. Paying bills is something we ALL have to do. Getting medical treatment is NECESSARY and something we ALL have a right to. Attending to basic human needs is not at ALL comparable to going out to a bar.


----------



## Flaming (Feb 2, 2013)

> Maybe I was unclear here as well. I know I didn't elaborate enough if I gave the impression that I advocate any sort of certification check prior to entering any business. I was only suggesting people should be prepared to provide documentation if asked. And I would add that this should be a rare situation in cases where alleged service animals cause a disruption or hazard.
> 
> If a claimed service dog is causing an issue, it oughtn't be too big of a problem to be asked for documentation that the dog is an actual service dog. The registration card or certificate or whatever wouldn't need to identify a specific disability.
> 
> I think this could be accomplished by some sort of official registry--perhaps by whatever agency registers all dogs, or maybe by the state office that issues personal ID...wich is the department of motor vehicles, in most places. There would be costs to run whatever agency administers the program. But with all the money we pay people not to work these days, maybe some of these people can be put to work staffing such an agency.


Quoting myself because I have experience where this just doesn't work 


Flaming said:


> I get enough harassment for actually using a cane at my age when I enter certain establishments or come across certain types of people. I truly believe that if they could request that I show a card then it would get much worse. And I will eventually benefit from a dog but I would rather self train because of a few abnormalities in my condition that would make a gov trained dog more than useless, some tasks have to be altered to fit me or become potentially dangerous and I'm sure that they would want to refuse certs for a owner trained dog.
> 
> There is already an optional cert card in some provinces of Canada but you need dogs trained by a certain school in order to get it. Also since there are no schools like that within reasonable access of my home or many places in Canada and the U.S. (think rural) this certification requirement would be leaving out many people who would benefit from a dog.


----------



## Raggedw00ds (Jul 15, 2013)

As someone who suffers from SEVERE Panic Disorder....yes...anxiety CAN very well be VERY disabling.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

skitty56 said:


> [
> Legally a service dog, even a legitimate one, can be asked to leave if its causing trouble in the store. They have to be allowed, but they also have to behave.


Yep. And they can be asked what TASKS the dog is TRAINED to do. That's your line. Fakers usually have answers, and there's nothing at all wrong with asking that question.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

CptJack said:


> Yep. And they can be asked what TASKS the dog is TRAINED to do. That's your line. Fakers usually have answers, and there's nothing at all wrong with asking that question.


Yes, that's what I mean when I keep saying that if businesses properly trained their employees about their rights are weren't afraid to actually act within their rights, a lot of faking would disappear. It isn't fair to pass the buck from businesses who can't or won't do that onto the shoulders of people who use legitimate service dogs, IMO.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

sassafras said:


> Yes, that's what I mean when I keep saying that if businesses properly trained their employees about their rights are weren't afraid to actually act within their rights, a lot of faking would disappear. It isn't fair to pass the buck from businesses who can't or won't do that onto the shoulders of people who use legitimate service dogs, IMO.


Yep, exactly. IMO this isn't a case of insufficient laws, this is a case of the ones we have not being used. There's a method here, in place, that would work quite well. People not using it is the issue, not the need for more restriction for people with disabilities.


----------



## Kevin T (Apr 22, 2013)

Emmett said:


> One problem with these concepts is that they are not treating all disabilities equally. People who use non-organic mobility assistance devices would not be required to provide "proof" of their need for this equipment. You're creating a "special category" of disabled people that are required to jump through more hoops in order to gain access to and utilize their medical equipment. Which is a legal no-no!
> 
> When you create such a certification process you are also going to have to clearly formalize who qualifies for a service dog. Which means categorically identifying which disorders and disabilities merit a service dog, spelling out which tasks are acceptable and determining what level of severity is required. The questions then become: who comes up with these guidelines, how are they applied to the certification process, what does the process look like, what kind of appeal process, how would testing be fairly implemented in a country as diverse and spread out as the US, who would perform the testing, etc.?
> 
> ...


Good points, eloquently stated.

Are we sure that we want to treat all disabilities equally, though? Would this be for the sake of political correctness, or just consideration for the privacy or other needs of the disabled? 

I don't want to go back to a time when people with disabilities are not accommodated, but maybe we're trying to be too PC about this. People's different disabilities have different impacts on them. Individuals' needs differ from those of others. Why pretend it is otherwise?

Regarding administering a registry, my thought was to have a physician certify that an individual's life can be improved though a service animal. Some agency would accept this at face value and issue a registration. With the ever increasing intrusion into our private lives through balooning government oversight, the fact that a service dog was recommended by a doctor would be entered in the giant federal bureaucratic system of records. But since the patient's diagnosis is already going to be included in one or more federal database(s), I don't know how information about a service dog recommendation would make things any worse.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Yep. I am absolutely sure I want to be treated as equally as possible and do not consider the idea that I do not to be excessive political correctness.

Why pretend otherwise? Because frankly, it is none of your freaking business what impacts my life or how I mitigate it. The fact is, it's being mitigated. Be it by a mobility dog, an oxygen tank, or medication. My medication isn't being tracked by the government, my (non-existent) cane wouldn't be registered, and no one has any business registering a service animal just because some jerks take advantage. Use the means for control presented you -that work- rather than implying that making the lives of the disabled more difficult is totally reasonable, just so the lives of the perfectly abled can be less inconvenienced. 

It's a lousy attitude and that's exactly what it amounts to. 

"You're disabled, and we're not. YOU make the allowances and changes necessary to keep US from being bothered." 

No. My/their/the lives of the disabled are complicated enough already, thanks. YOU use the methods that you have and apparently don't like to deal with these things. It's obnoxious. Way more obnoxious than a fake service dog.


----------



## Flaming (Feb 2, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Yep. I am absolutely sure I want to be treated as equally as possible and do not consider the idea that I do not to be excessive political correctness.


This

*too short*


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

How do you "grade" disabilities? Regardless of the underlying issue causing it, if a person's daily life is significantly impacted by their condition, they're disabled. I wouldn't want the government deciding a blind person deserves accomodation where an epileptic does not, for example.

I like my medical care and decisions kept as much between me and my doctors as possible without government involvement. I would think a disabled person deserves the same?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

> If a claimed service dog is causing an issue, it oughtn't be too big of a problem to be asked for documentation that the dog is an actual service dog. The registration card or certificate or whatever wouldn't need to identify a specific disability.


As others have pointed out, even people with legitimate service dogs can be asked to leave if the dog is causing a disturbance, so no extra laws are needed.

I agree that business owners need to know what they are allowed to do, and to actually do it. They can ask a person if their dog is a service dog. They can ask what tasks the dog has been trained to perform. They can ask any person with a dog to leave if the dog is causing trouble.


----------



## Kevin T (Apr 22, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Yep, exactly. IMO this isn't a case of insufficient laws, this is a case of the ones we have not being used. There's a method here, in place, that would work quite well. People not using it is the issue, not the need for more restriction for people with disabilities.


If laws already exist that can solve the problem, then I agree the solution is to enforce them without additional legislation.


----------



## Kevin T (Apr 22, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Yep. I am absolutely sure I want to be treated as equally as possible and do not consider the idea that I do not to be excessive political correctness.
> 
> Why pretend otherwise? Because frankly, it is none of your freaking business what impacts my life or how I mitigate it. The fact is, it's being mitigated. Be it by a mobility dog, an oxygen tank, or medication. My medication isn't being tracked by the government, my (non-existent) cane wouldn't be registered, and no one has any business registering a service animal just because some jerks take advantage. Use the means for control presented you -that work- rather than implying that making the lives of the disabled more difficult is totally reasonable, just so the lives of the perfectly abled can be less inconvenienced.
> 
> ...


I apologize for giving offense. I am embarrassed at how badly I communicated my thoughts. The political correctness comment was intended to convey the idea that treating all disabled people in one way and all non-disabled people another way seemed wrong to me. Different people have different needs. I didn't mean to suggest that we shouldn't treat all _people _ equally (disabled or not) . I was saying (badly) that different _disabilities _need to be addressed differently--that the types and degrees of disability will require different means of mitigation and possibly even facilitation from public and private organizations. 

Whatever you've inferred about my attitude, I would ask that you forgive where I have erred. I made some suggestions on how it might be possible to reduce the number of fake service dogs we're seeing. Maybe this isn't as big of a problem as would be caused by any effort to solve it. At any rate, I would never (knowingly) advocate anything that would make anyone's life more difficult. 

"Use the means for control presented you -that work- rather than implying that making the lives of the disabled more difficult is totally reasonable, just so the lives of the perfectly abled can be less inconvenienced." 

I don't feel inconvenienced by service animals at all. My support for any idea intended to help reduce the number of fakers out there was not out of any desire to minimize any impact on me--because there is none. I'm not bothered by service dogs in the slightest, although I am appalled at anyone who would fake a service dog for the sake of convenience or saving a few bucks. I was thinking there might be something that government could do that would be helpful, but I'm beginning to think that as usual, a good case can be made that less legislation and regulation may be best--especially if existing laws might be effective if enforced, as you and others have mentioned earlier.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you meant by "YOU use the methods that you have and apparently don't like to deal with these things".

Again, I apoloize to any and all whom I may have offended.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Emmett said:


> One problem with these concepts is that they are not treating all disabilities equally. People who use non-organic mobility assistance devices would not be required to provide "proof" of their need for this equipment. You're creating a "special category" of disabled people that are required to jump through more hoops in order to gain access to and utilize their medical equipment. Which is a legal no-no!
> 
> When you create such a certification process you are also going to have to clearly formalize who qualifies for a service dog. Which means categorically identifying which disorders and disabilities merit a service dog, spelling out which tasks are acceptable and determining what level of severity is required. The questions then become: who comes up with these guidelines, how are they applied to the certification process, what does the process look like, what kind of appeal process, how would testing be fairly implemented in a country as diverse and spread out as the US, who would perform the testing, etc.?
> 
> ...


Actually, that's why I recommended the certification. There is no need to ask what disability the person has. Only that the dog must show obedience and a task or a few to show assistance. Doesn't even matter if the person is disabled, having the proper training on the dog will prevent untrained, rowdy pets going wherever the owner chooses. So no reason for others to complain, or jeopardize properly trained service dogs from being welcomed in the future.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

It could be as simple as a CGC evaluator observing the dog performing tasks and issuing certifications. After the dog passed suitable temperament test and obedience, which I think should be much more in depth than a simple CGC.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

juliemule said:


> It could be as simple as a CGC evaluator observing the dog performing tasks and issuing certifications. After the dog passed suitable temperament test and obedience, which I think should be much more in depth than a simple CGC.


The problem I have with someone, anyone, evaluating the dog's task is that, in many cases, this would necessitate the evaluator being privy to the handler's disability. It is easy enough to see a mobility assistance dog mitigating a physical disability by retrieving items or steadying someone's gate. The same cannot be said for many of the tasks a psychiatric service dog is trained to provide and so the evaluator would _need_ explanation and information. Now, we are back to someone who is not your medical professional being privy to confidential and protected medical information. This is not the same as simply inquiring on the nature of the task, as a representative of a business is allowed to do. "He alerts me to specific noises, like the alarm clock, monitor beep, intercom announcement, etc." in no way identifies a specific disability as the one being mitigated.

I have no problem batting around the idea of temperament and obedience testing/certification but it should in no way have anything to do with the handler's disability. Which brings me back to the idea that service dogs _could_ be evaluated in a way that deems them safe and fit to perform their duty in a public setting, much like other medical equipment is evaluated for safety and compliance before being sold/given to a person with a disability. How this would look and be funded, I honestly cannot answer. It is a concept I am willing to entertain and _could_ see the value in if it were administered appropriately.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Xeph said:


> GAD/SAD here


Same here, with ADHD and sensory processing disorder thrown in for good measure. Do I need a service dog to function in the real world? No, in my case, my impairments are not that severe. With medication, I can hold down a job and function relatively well, although I will always struggle. But even though I function pretty well with medication, I STILL have a mental disability. The severity of a disability does not determine whether or not a person is disabled.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Who is going to give these tests and how is it going to be set up so everyone has access to them? Who gets to set the guidelines? 

As someone who has a dog that is 100% not service dog material and also has a CGC I think requiring a CGC is a joke. They tell you pretty much nothing about the dog's temperament. 

I've come across ONE dog in a store acting up. I assume it was a service dog, no idea. But is that often enough to require more hoops for disabled people?


----------



## Aska (Jun 9, 2013)

I don't understand what's going on here, but I just wanted to say...

My support dog did save my life. I couldn't leave my house (anxiety disorder, borderline personality disorder, Anorexia, OCD). But, with her, I felt safe. I made a lot of progress, I actually did leave my house and my anxiety wasn't as bad. She's gone now, but I'm forever thankful. I can't answer the door or the phone, I can't leave the house without covering my face and lock/unlock the door 20 times... But I do leave the house. I also feel so much better. If it wasn't for her, I would not be writing this right now- the computer is dirty, the chair is dirty, etc. I'd be cleaning everything, and I'd be panicking and what not.

I just did have an argument with a woman who said emotional support dogs were pointless. I needed to get this out somewhere


----------



## Sparkles123 (Dec 3, 2012)

In Germany dogs are allowed everywhere, including restaurants, they sit on chairs and eat off the table....nobody dying from exposure but I find that 'over the top'!
I Cali we take the pups to outdoor restaurants, it's legal and a Fun outing for them.


----------



## LoMD13 (Aug 4, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> I've come across ONE dog in a store acting up. I assume it was a service dog, no idea. But is that often enough to require more hoops for disabled people?


This is what always gets me about this argument. I've seen maybe 10 service dogs in my entire life and they all were well behaved. I just don't see where all these fakers are.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

They aren't usually in public. They're usually trying to score free transportation for their dog.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Yeah, the only fakers I know (not personally, but they're friends of friends) are lying so that they can take their dogs on planes.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

During college I worked at Walmart and I can't count how many times a "purse dog" would come in and they would claim it was a "service dog". There is a company policy in place that says ONLY door greeters and salaried members of management are allowed to ask any questions about the dog. Even though I was well aware of my legal right as a store representative to ask for clarification on what specific task the dog was trained to do as well as ask a misbehaving dog to leave the building my hands were tied. It was frustrating to no end.

Having said that, I also personally know an owner trained service dog who IS ill behaved. Her handler has some sort of muscle disease that necessitates the use of a wheel chair and she has trained certain tasks for "Tootsie" to help with everyday obstacles. Tootsie is a lovely Doberman with energy in spades and she just does not have the temperament needed to perform appropriately. She often cuts in front of her handler, moves erratically, even pulling the leash out of her hands, she's knocked the electric chair off track on numerous occasions, she's occasionally reactive to other dogs and excessive noise, I've seen her snuffle in another person's purse, the list goes on. The truth is Otis and Tootsie were in the same Beginner Obedience class working toward their CGC and in the end Toots did not pass. Yet, she is passed off as a fully trained service dog.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

sassafras said:


> Oh, lord, really? You're making this comparison?
> 
> Enough people think that dogs create enough of a disruption in stores that most store owners choose not to allow them _on their private property_ (barring legally protected classes such as service dogs). They don't need any more of a reason than "my other customers don't like it" or even "I don't like dogs and don't want them in here" or "I don't want someone's dog getting hair on my merchandise."
> 
> There is no comparison to banning mushing. A valid comparison would be if an individual, government, or business banned me from mushing _on their property_, which they are perfectly free to do and in fact DO do. There are designated skijoring and designated dog-free trails at the park where I skijor. So I skijor on the skijoring trails and stay off the skier-only trails. It's not that hard for a grown-up to realize that just because something is nice for MEMEMEME that other people might not appreciate my dogs tromping all over their ski trails (or getting hair on their merchandise or scaring their other customers).


That's a nice strawman you've got there. 

I've already pointed out that as private property stores can create and enforce whatever rules they choose. That's not in question and _never_ a part of my argument or post. I was pointing out that I've never seen a convincing argument that a 100 lb German Shepherd should be treated equivalently to a 5 lb chihuahua in a purse. Still have yet to see it. The default setting is to allow people to pursue their desires unless it significantly interferes with others. Emmet is the only one who even began to address the nature of that interference. The fact that people want it, is not a de facto reason to ban it. Without that justification I think its a pretty stupid and senseless rule, theirs to make, but senseless all the same.

Maybe that senselessness explains the fact that as a matter of functionality, most stores do actually treat those dogs differently.

EDIT: Again, I want to say that I am in no way suggesting I have a similar right to bring my dog anywhere that a service dog does. Nor have I ever or will ever falsely claim my dog is one. These posts are more of an aside in this particular debate, about whether there is solid reasoning behind banning small, contained dogs in addition to larger, uncontained ones. Like Sparkles123 I don't really buy that they're a serious health risk, I would want to see _some_ evidence or examples that those cases exist at all and to an extent that banning dogs is a reasonable measure.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

aiw said:


> That's a nice strawman you've got there.
> 
> I've already pointed out that as private property stores can create and enforce whatever rules they choose. That's not in question and _never_ a part of my argument or post. I was pointing out that I've never seen a convincing argument that a 100 lb German Shepherd should be treated equivalently to a 5 lb chihuahua in a purse. Still have yet to see it. The default setting is to allow people to pursue their desires unless it significantly interferes with others. Emmet is the only one who even began to address the nature of that interference. Without that justification I think its a pretty stupid and senseless rule, theirs to make, but senseless all the same.
> 
> *Maybe that senselessness explains the fact that as a matter of functionality, most stores do actually treat those dogs differently*.


Except they don't, at least not in most places I've been to. If a store employee catches you with your "pocket pooch" they ask you to leave just like they would if I attempted to walk in with my 60 lb mutt...it's just that he's harder to sneak in. Which is pretty apropos since this thread is all about how people _fake_ service dog status so they can gain access to places where their dog, no matter the size, is not allowed.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Anyone else remember that 21-page thread about the woman in Target with the chi in her purse? Good times.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Emmett said:


> *Except they don't, at least not in most places I've been to. If a store employee catches you with your "pocket pooch" they ask you to leave* just like they would if I attempted to walk in with my 60 lb mutt...it's just that he's harder to sneak in. Which is pretty apropos since this thread is all about how people _fake_ service dog status so they can gain access to places where their dog, no matter the size, is not allowed.


Hmm, hasn't been my experience. I've never been asked to leave or remove the dog, although I would if I was. Again though, I'm not talking about faking service dog status. Obviously that's not acceptable and certainly not something I do.



> Anyone else remember that 21-page thread about the woman in Target with the chi in her purse? Good times.


No! Do you remember the title?


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

No one at work ever tells people with dogs in purses to leave. There was an incidence where a man put his Chihuahua in the cart complete with a dog bed and they did ask him to leave.

The only time I saw for sure fake SDs was at Six Flags. The lady had two kids and two yorkies in a wagon. The wagon had signs on white printer paper written in sharpie stating "Medical Alert Dogs". Why the hell would you want to wrangle kids AND dogs at Six Flags is beyond me.


----------



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

Bleh. I didn't really want to respond to my own thread because I'm sure I'll be chewed out. But eh, oh well I suppose.

I'm torn on the registration thing. Yes, SDs ARE medical equipment. But you just can't say it's the exact same thing as a wheel chair, or cane, in my opinion. It's an animal, and it's a liability. If there are no regulations or certifications on the dogs... and it bites someone, who's going to pay for it? If it bites a child? People flip out when a police dog bites someone that it's 'not supposed to' all the time, and complain that police dogs shouldn't be out in public.. well, technically, SDs can be self trained, not even professionally, most of the time, right? (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

It's a liability. Yes, the business owner can tell them to leave if the dog is acting up. But what happens if it DOES bite someone, a serious bite? A bite that requires medical attention? If my child was bitten by an SD, do I sue the handler? What if they refuse to pay for damages? Are there regulations with that sort of thing?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

aiw said:


> Hmm, hasn't been my experience. I've never been asked to leave or remove the dog, although I would if I was. Again though, I'm not talking about faking service dog status. Obviously that's not acceptable and certainly not something I do.
> 
> 
> 
> No! Do you remember the title?


I guess my question here is why you think you and your dog should have more rights than me and my dog? Why is it ok for you to violate store policies? Even if a small dog is "easier to sneak in," that still doesn't mean you have a right to do so or should feel justified in doing so.

If it's not right for me to tell a small dog owner that their dog is any less of a dog (I don't feel they are), then they should also have to abide by the rules that pertain to all other dogs. In other words, either your pocket pooch is dog and therefore subject to the rules all other dog owners have to follow...or it isn't. And if it isn't a dog...what the heck do you consider it?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

aiw said:


> No! Do you remember the title?


http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog-forum/73549-person-target-chi-her.html


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

sassafras said:


> Well, and you know what? Even if it was "special treatment" (WHICH IT IS NOT NOT NOT)... so what? If it make their life easier when a lot of their life is harder than mine, I'm not going to quibble about someone else being able to take their dog into Walmart when I can't, you know?
> 
> 
> Certification for service dogs is all about making life easier for employees of businesses, when everything about service animals should be about MAKING LIFE EASIER FOR DISABLED PEOPLE. It's not a service dog's handler's fault that businesses aren't properly educated about the law, don't properly train their employees, and are too scared to act within their rights.


I have anxiety issues, (going to therapy for it ... Finally) & frankly I find Emmett's post about "pulling up your bootstraps" quite offensive. If you haven't lived with anxiety, or mobility issues then you don't know, you. Just. Don't. Know. 

In reference to handicapped parking tags, my father has one because it is very painful for him to walk long distances, it pisses me off to NO END when I see someone pull in to a handicapped spot with tags & lo & behold two PERFECTLY ABLE BODIED young people get out & rush into the store, most likely using their disabled relatives car so they can get a good parking spot at the mall or store! I have actually threatened to expose them for fraud & call the police if they don't move so my ACTUALLY disabled father can park there.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

In my example above I talked about the people who would come into Walmart with small dogs, be called out and claim "service dog" status. It happened all the time. Most people who came in with their small dog were never asked to leave. Either they were never caught OR they were caught by an employee who simply didn't care. I personally think that, much like a lot of Europe, well-behaved and groomed dogs of all sizes should be allowed most places, within reason. So, when I saw a dog in a purse I wouldn't confront the owner unless the dog was making themselves known. I HAD to confront owners of larger dogs because they simply could not be inconspicuous. The rule was no different for any size, but the ability to circumvent the rule and my ability to "look the other way" was size dependent.

While I would personally choose to accept dogs in any business I owned as long as local ordinances allowed, I would never say it is "senseless" when businesses bar all dogs no matter the size. Not only is it their peroragative, but it is also perfectly reasonable to do everything in your power to make your customer base happy. In my area the number of people who want to bring their "purse dogs" into a store is far LESS than the number of people who would object if exposed to said dog.

Does it have to be a "serious" health risk to merit sensibility? I am allergic to cats, not seriously allergic, but enough so that, without medication, if a small amount of cat hair wafted into me (which could easily happen if a cat, which would be similar in size to a small dog, and, it could be argued, should be granted the same size exemption, where in a bag near me in the checkout line) I would have a reaction. I would sneeze, cough, my eyes would itch and swell, and I would develop a headache. To me it is perfectly reasonable to say that because a certain percentage, even if small, of customers _could_ be made physically uncomfortable the *luxury* of bringing a small dog into a store can be limited.

While you're right that other allergies could pose more physical risk, it is a logical fallacy to say that a lesser issue should be overlooked because a more severe issue is not being addressed. The two issues are completely separate.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> I guess my question here is why you think you and your dog should have more rights than me and my dog? Why is it ok for you to violate store policies? Even if a small dog is "easier to sneak in," that still doesn't mean you have a right to do so or should feel justified in doing so.
> 
> If it's not right for me to tell a small dog owner that their dog is any less of a dog (I don't feel they are), then they should also have to abide by the rules that pertain to all other dogs. In other words, either your pocket pooch is dog and therefore subject to the rules all other dog owners have to follow...or it isn't. And if it isn't a dog...what the heck do you consider it?


Because the concerns surrounding your dog simply don't apply to mine (unless its loose). Yes, they are both dogs, but the way they interact with the environment isn't even close to equivalent. A 60 lb dog will be leashed and walking in the store, easily able to pee, chew things, or generally make a mess. They can get into merchandise or interact with other customers in unwanted ways (jumping, licking or even growling and biting). Its not uncommon for people to fear large dogs and truthfully, they could do a lot of damage. Of course your dog personally would never do any of those things, but I consider those legitimate reasons for a store to institute a blanket ban since undoubtedly not all dogs are trained to Sams level.

None of the concerns listed exist for a dog closed into a purse. I haven't seen any others which come close. As I said, a store still can ban them and enforce it, I just think its a senseless rule.

If anyone is wondering I probably have broken pet policies, although I don't places where its specifically posted or anywhere with food items. Although I don't feel any guilt bringing the dog in, if asked to leave or remove the dog, I would. Nope, I don't follow all the rules, and I bet there have been one or two instances where most here haven't, be it leash laws, picking up after the dog or whatever else. I'd be willing to change my behaviour but need more justification than "rules are rules".


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I have anxiety issues, (going to therapy for it ... Finally) & frankly I find Emmett's post about "pulling up your bootstraps" quite offensive. If you haven't lived with anxiety, or mobility issues then you don't know, you. Just. Don't. Know.


Did you read any of my other posts or the posts that prompted that comment?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

aiw said:


> That's a nice strawman you've got there.


LOL you're the one who went all WELL WHAT IF THEY BAN MUSHING YOU WOULDN'T BE LAUGHING and you're accusing ME of logical fallacies? Aheh. Nice one. 




> I've already pointed out that as private property stores can create and enforce whatever rules they choose. That's not in question and _never_ a part of my argument or post. I was pointing out that I've never seen a convincing argument that a 100 lb German Shepherd should be treated equivalently to a 5 lb chihuahua in a purse. Still have yet to see it.


If a store can create and enforce whatever rule they choose on their own property, then _you are not entitled to a convincing argument_ from anyone. The argument is "because the store owner said so," end of story. You seem to be under the impression that unless someone provides you with a justification that you personally find acceptable, then you should be able to do what you like because YOU WANNA. That is not how grown ups function in society.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

aiw said:


> Because the concerns surrounding your dog simply don't apply to mine (unless its loose). Yes, they are both dogs, but the way they interact with the environment isn't even close to equivalent. A 60 lb dog will be leashed and walking in the store, easily able to pee, chew things, or generally make a mess. They can get into merchandise or interact with other customers in unwanted ways (jumping, licking or even growling and biting). Its not uncommon for people to fear large dogs and truthfully, they could do a lot of damage. Of course your dog personally would never do any of those things, but I consider those legitimate reasons for a store to institute a blanket ban since undoubtedly not all dogs are trained to Sams level.
> 
> None of the concerns listed exist for a dog closed into a purse. I haven't seen any others which come close. As I said, a store still can ban them and enforce it, I just think its a senseless rule.
> 
> If anyone is wondering I probably have broken pet policies, although I don't places where its specifically posted or anywhere with food items. Although I don't feel any guilt bringing the dog in, if asked to leave or remove the dog, I would. Nope, I don't follow all the rules, and I bet there have been one or two instances where most here haven't, be it leash laws, picking up after the dog or whatever else. I'd be willing to change my behaviour but need more justification than "rules are rules".


Then I guess your dog isn't a dog since you feel it should be allowed where dogs are prohibited. What do you consider your animal then, because most of these same places also don't allow pets?

I'm sorry, but people with a sense of entitlement who think they are excepted from the rules everyone else must follow just really bother me. They also tend to give responsible small dog owners who do follow access laws and rules a bad name, which isn't fair to those responsible owners.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

There was a kid in academy who had an accident (pee) on the floor, (this was an older kid too like ... 7 ish) should all kids 7 & under be banned from academy because of the actions of one? 

Just saying.

@ AIW I find it insulting that you think your dog is superior just because it is smaller then mine. Your dog could still pee or bark or growl at someone.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

> Not only is it their peroragative, but it is also perfectly reasonable to do everything in your power to make your customer base happy. In my area the number of people who want to bring their "purse dogs" into a store is far LESS than the number of people who would object if exposed to said dog.


I'm not sure if I agree that statistic is true, but it is a very good point to consider.



> To me it is perfectly reasonable to say that because a certain percentage, even if small, of customers could be made physically uncomfortable the luxury of bringing a small dog into a store can be limited.


Yes, but if we accept this policy, logically it should be extended to other analogous situations. We don't, which makes me skeptical about the true necessity of it. Something to think about though, I wouldn't want to be making anyone sick around me - I'll keep an eye out and mull it over.



> While you're right that other allergies could pose more physical risk, it is a logical fallacy to say that a lesser issue should be overlooked because a more severe issue is not being addressed. The two issues are completely separate.


This part I simply don't agree with. In developing a coherent policy about allergy management it makes sense to look at the field as a whole and see what measures are used in similar circumstances.

If I had my way, I would also allow well-mannered and groomed dogs of all sizes in stores and possibly even cafes. Not my choice to make, but I do think there are very good arguments for it.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> Then I guess your dog isn't a dog since you feel it should be allowed where dogs are prohibited. What do you consider your animal then, because most of these same places also don't allow pets?
> 
> I'm sorry, but people with a sense of entitlement who think they are excepted from the rules everyone else must follow just really bother me. They also tend to give responsible small dog owners who do follow access laws and rules a bad name, which isn't fair to those responsible owners.


I'm not sure why you're determined to skip over the meat of my argument. Obviously it is a dog, but they don't interact with the environment equivalently which suggests that the rules regulating that interaction would justifiably be different.

If other owners are following access laws then they won't and shouldn't be labeled as irresponsible. If people want to think I'm a jerk, well I'll bear the brunt of that, I don't take responsibility for or represent anyone other than myself. Sometimes I don't follow rules that I don't see _any_ sense in. I'm not okay with harming others, but truthfully the only people I've ever seen "harmed" by it are people such as yourself upset that you're unable to do the same with your dog. If its otherwise, I would want to know so I can change my habits.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

aiw said:


> I'm not sure if I agree that statistic is true, but it is a very good point to consider...
> 
> This part I simply don't agree with. In developing a coherent policy about allergy management it makes sense to look at the field as a whole and see what measures are used in similar circumstances.
> 
> If I had my way, I would also allow well-mannered and groomed dogs of all sizes in stores and possibly even cafes. Not my choice to make, but I do think there are very good arguments for it.


The "statistic" was simply my experience locally. I imagine that in different parts of the country with differing social climates this would not bear out. Specifically in NYC, where small dogs are hugely popular and the populace is more likely to be mobile with their dogs, I could see where the ratio would be flipped. 

I'll substitute other ideas for the "greater" and "lesser" issues. Greater: Global warming. Lesser: Personal carbon emissions. So, since global warming is not being addressed on a planet-wide scale, I shouldn't bother to reduce my personal carbon emissions. This logic is illogical and so is the idea that because serious allergens aren't addressed lesser allergens shouldn't be either. Moreover, the logistics of attempting to completely remove all traces of nuts (serious) from say, a grocery store, is near impossible. Compare that to the logistics of simply barring dogs (lesser), of any size, from said grocery store.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I do what I want! Aheh.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Why not just ask permission to bring a dog in a non-pet store? Wouldn't that solve all the issues? It's up to the store owner to decide the rules for if animals are allowed inside....


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> It's up to the store owner to decide the rules for if animals are allowed inside....


Well, only if it makes SENSE to random people. :/


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Crantastic said:


> Last time I checked, I didn't have to show a card every time I entered a business. If a service dog owner had to, then they would not be following the same rules as me.


A service dog owner wouldn't have to show a card if they didn't want to bring their dog inside. Sure you can call it medical equipment or whatever but it's still something that isn't normally allowed.

Since yet another person seemed offended by the "special treatment" term, let me ask you guys something then. Since disabled people shouldn't get "special treatment", is it bad that I'm less of an a**hole to people that I think are disabled? Is it bad that I ignore service dogs in stores instead of greeting them like I perhaps would with normal dogs? Is it bad that I try to hold the door open for the elderly and physically handicapped people? I can certainly stop all that if it's too offensive.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

sassafras said:


> I do what I want! Aheh.


Still haven't supplied any kind of reasoning. You might not like the idea that I broke the rule and have an intrinsic problem with that (no problem) but that's a different issue from being unable to provide some kind of reasoning for the rule in the first place.

EDIT:



> Why not just ask permission to bring a dog in a non-pet store? Wouldn't that solve all the issues? It's up to the store owner to decide the rules for if animals are allowed inside....


Yes, I could do that I suppose. Generally if he's zipped up in my bag I don't bother, but I don't take issue with their _right_ to determine whether animals are allowed, just their reasoning for doing so.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Should a disabled person have to have a card for an electric powers scooter? Heaven knows I've been almost run down by those and I'm sure they wouldn't allow powered recreational scooters in the store. 

As far a pet dogs go... Ask. The owner of the establishment gets to decide. Yes. No. Only if you carry them. Etc. just because you think it makes it better if you're at tying the dog doesn't mean it's ok. The owner of the property gets to make the rules. As it should be.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> There was a kid in academy who had an accident (pee) on the floor, (this was an older kid too like ... 7 ish) should all kids 7 & under be banned from academy because of the actions of one?
> 
> Just saying.


_Should_ they? I'm on the fence about this one. Personally, I *do* appreciate that a few restaurants have started prohibiting children during certain hours. _Can_ they? *ABSOLUTELY*...and it could be perfectly sensible to do so. Children can be messy and disruptive, if a business owner wants to bar them because of that, they CAN. Coincidentally, children are "germy" which is why they are often barred from visiting places like burns units and NICUs.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> Should a disabled person have to have a card for an electric powers scooter?


Can anyone bring an electric power scooter into stores?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> @ AIW I find it insulting that you think your dog is superior just because it is smaller then mine. Your dog could still pee or bark or growl at someone.


I don't think he's superior. He could pee.... in my purse. He could bark, I'll give you that one, but not at a person since he is.... in my purse.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

zhaor said:


> A service dog owner wouldn't have to show a card if they didn't want to bring their dog inside.


It is not a matter of _want_...they *NEED* to. How is a blind person going to choose to not bring their guide dog into the store? A service dog is classified the EXACT same as any other medically assistive device. Would you expect a person to leave their wheelchair at the door if they didn't want to show a card?


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Emmett said:


> It is not a matter of _want_...they *NEED* to.


How would you know they need to bring in a dog? because it's a service dog? How would you know it's not a 'fake' service dog? (which is what this thread was suppose to be about btw)


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

aiw said:


> Still haven't supplied any kind of reasoning. You might not like the idea that I broke the rule and have an intrinsic problem with that (no problem) but that's a different issue from being unable to provide some kind of reasoning for the rule in the first place.



I actually have provided you with some kind of reasoning - because the business owner said so. You don't LIKE that reasoning, but it IS reasoning. 

I actually don't really personally care that much if you broke the rule, and if I did I wouldn't expect you to care about it if I did care. I just find it amusing in a ridiculous way that you think you're entitled to any kind of reasoning or explanation at all beyond "the business owner said so". It's childish and selfish to do what you like in someone else's house, so to speak, because you don't feel like their reason is good enough for you. Especially for something that is completely unnecessary like bringing your dog into a place of business. 

But by all means, keep sticking it to the man. I'm sure you're accomplishing... something.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

zhaor said:


> How would you know they need to bring in a dog? because it's a service dog? How would you know it's not a 'fake' service dog? (which is what this thread was suppose to be about btw)


How do you know they need to use a wheelchair? 

Fake service dogs are annoying. There are ways to circumvent that - legally. ASKING TO REGISTER THE DOG AND PROVIDE PROOF OF ITS STATUS IS NOT.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Electric is probably the wrong term. Power chair or motorized scooter or whatever they're called. I see them all the time

Or heck one of my friends is using a scooter right now because she had foot surgery and can't walk for a few months. It's one where her operated foot is up and resting on it and she kicks with her other foot to go. My sister and I had something rally similar as kids. You see why she's allowed to ride her scooter around work and I can't bring mine in? 

Sadly the world is not set up all that well for many disabled people to function. I have not had the experience some have had but I did caretaker work for my mother before she passed away. It gave me an inkling of what people have to go through.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

CptJack said:


> How do you know they need to use a wheelchair?


You know, when I was younger I used to play around with my grandfather's wheelchair. Little did I know I could have used it to go into the store and get "special treatment"...


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

CptJack said:


> How do you know they need to use a wheelchair?


You don't, unless they're obviously physically deformed. The thing is, you assume they do. When people with 'fake' wheel chairs become a problem, then I guess maybe something needs to be done there too.

Service dogs aren't obvious. Like Xeph called it, service dogs can be for an 'invisible condition' So then how do you tell?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I read an article a while back about people faking a kid in a wheelchair to skip lines at Disney. Apparently happens a lot. 

Why does catching a fake or two every now and then trump the rights of disabled people to go freely about their lives?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

zhaor said:


> Service dogs aren't obvious. Like Xeph called it, service dogs can be for an 'invisible condition' So then how do you tell?


You ask them if their dog is a service dog, and what tasks it is trained to do. Which business owners are allowed to do under the law.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

sassafras said:


> I actually have provided you with some kind of reasoning - because the business owner said so. You don't LIKE that reasoning, but it IS reasoning.


Yes, in the same way that "rules are rules" is reasoning. Its not much. "You can't do it because I said so" explains why I can't do it. But not why you said so.

This being a discussion forum for dogs I don't think its insane that I would question the reasoning behind dog policy.



> But by all means, keep sticking it to the man. I'm sure you're accomplishing... something.


Well, when all the purse pooches get organized to lead the proletariat rebellion against the bourgeois Wal-mart managers it'll be a proud day! 'Till then I'll just enjoy an afternoon in the sun doing chores with Pete.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

aiw said:


> Yes, in the same way that "rules are rules" is reasoning. Its not much. "You can't do it because I said so" explains why I can't do it. But not why you said so.


It doesn't matter why a business owner said so. It's their property and they can do as they like. Maybe they just plain don't like dogs. _It doesn't matter what their reason is_. If I have a rule that you aren't allowed to wear red in my home, it doesn't matter WHY. It's my house and I said so, so don't wear red or leave. Why on earth should anyone obligated to justify to you or anyone else what they do and don't allow in their own business? (Assuming it is legal.)


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

sassafras said:


> You ask them if their dog is a service dog, and what tasks it is trained to do. Which business owners are allowed to do under the law.


It's ok to actually stop them and ask them but stopping them to ask to see a card would be 'discrimination'?


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

Laurelin said:


> I read an article a while back about people faking a kid in a wheelchair to skip lines at Disney. Apparently happens a lot.
> 
> Why does catching a fake or two every now and then trump the rights of disabled people to go freely about their lives?


The NY Times did an exposé on wealthy families that paid disabled people to pose as family members so they could get better seats, skip ahead in lines and get extra perks and discounts.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

zhaor said:


> It's ok to actually stop them and ask them but stopping them to ask to see a card would be 'discrimination'?


The act of asking for a card is not discriminatory, the act of requiring registration for the card and all that this entails IS.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

zhaor said:


> It's ok to actually stop them and ask them but stopping them to ask to see a card would be 'discrimination'?





Emmett said:


> The act of asking for a card is not discriminatory, the act of requiring registration for the card and all that this entails IS.


Exactly. 

Also, there is no need to add another layer of bureaucracy to a process that is already covered under existing law.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Ah yes maybe that was it I remembered. My point was people do fake disabilities in other ways too. It's sick people do that but we shouldn't worry more about punishing people who abuse things than giving disabled people the right to go about their lives... Like everyone else can. 

So for the scooter example... My friend should have to register that she needs the scooter because she was born wih deformed feet that cause her pain and have compromised her ability to walk? And when she goes in stores, etc they should stop and ask to see that card? And I see that scooter at work and think 'hey I've got something similar at home! That would be so much more fun if I too could ride my scooter around the office. She shouldn't get preferential treatment like that!' So I bring mine in as well...

I really don't see how the service dog scenario is any different than that.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Emmett said:


> The act of asking for a card is not discriminatory, the act of requiring registration for the card and all that this entails IS.


So all this time my rights have been violated when I get carded to see if I'm over 21? Or when the ranger asks to see my fishing license? I'll be sure to bring that up next time.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

zhaor said:


> So all this time my rights have been violated when I get carded to see if I'm over 21? Or when the ranger asks to see my fishing license? I'll be sure to bring that up next time.


Nope, they haven't. You're not being carded simply for the right to exist in a public space.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Drinking isn't a right. Fishing isn't a right. Public access IS. 

I swear people have said that already.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> Drinking isn't a right. Fishing isn't a right. Public access IS.
> 
> I swear people have said that already.


They have.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

but why can't they just ask?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

zhaor said:


> but why can't they just ask?


Because there is a giant conspiracy to inconvenience you when you want a beer.


----------



## zeronightfarm (Jun 15, 2011)

Ok, I stayed out of this for a while, but I just want to share my piece.

I have an "invisible" disability, I am in pain all the time but have learned to hide it because of my parents(long story.) Any way, I'm working on getting a SD, I'm in a lot of SD groups, and talked to A LOT of SD handlers. Life is hard enough as it is, public access is hard enough as it is, I think it is not wise to mess with the SD laws. If any thing should be done, it should be mandatory CGC and PAT, that way, at least if they are fakers, the dogs will be well behaved. Also those things cost money, and it might deter some of the fakers.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Because there is a giant conspiracy to inconvenience you when you want a beer.


I knew it. F***ing NSA


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> Why not just ask permission to bring a dog in a non-pet store? Wouldn't that solve all the issues? It's up to the store owner to decide the rules for if animals are allowed inside....


I bring my dogs into the local college book store regularly. I asked the first time I brought Roxie in, and since Faxon is bigger and I can't carry her I asked when I brought her in. All it takes is to ask, around here many places that don't sell food allow dogs. The Yarn Shoppe, every car repair shop or oil change station, every hardware store, the book stores like I said, pet stores obviously, Rural King, even my therapist... If you want to take your dog in stores, shop where they are allowed.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Some of the latest replies have set my tics into overdrive. This is just ludicrous. It happens every time. I don't even know why I keep reading these threads -_-


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Some of the latest replies have set my tics into overdrive. This is just ludicrous. It happens every time. I don't even know why I keep reading these threads -_-


Do feel free to elaborate and vent. It's much more enlightening to hear the input of someone who actually needs a service dog instead of just third party supporters. It'll also be useful for all the ignorant people that are lurking or stumble across this thread in the future.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I've elaborated my position numerous times over the years. I even made a post and asked for it to be made a sticky (it was). It's a service dog FAQ.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Some of the latest replies have set my tics into overdrive. This is just ludicrous. It happens every time. I don't even know why I keep reading these threads -_-


I don't have an SD but you know I've considered one and done extensive research at this point and I feel you, I just get really angry at these kinds of things but I still read them. And then I want to yell.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I think it is highly telling that every single service dog handler and trainer I've ever talked to is very much against any registration or certification. Shouldn't they be the opinions that matter since it affects their lives a heck of a lot more than mine or yours? And they probably understand the issues a lot more thoroughly than someone who does not need a service dog?


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> I think it is highly telling that every single service dog handler and trainer I've ever talked to is very much against any registration or certification. Shouldn't they be the opinions that matter since it affects their lives a heck of a lot more than mine or yours? And they probably understand the issues a lot more thoroughly than someone who does not need a service dog?


Quoted for truth. I'd frankly rather see 10 idiots get away with faking it then make the life of even one disabled person any harder than it already is.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Not directly related to the conversation, but this popped up on my blog reader today: 
Happy International Assistance Dog Week: How Not to Be a Jerk to Working Dogs

A relevant quote, emphasis mine:


> Finally: Never, ever, fake a service dog with your own pet dog. Seriously. Don’t impersonate a service dog team so that you can fly your dog in the cabin or take them into Target with you to shop for sassy t-shirts. It’s ruining things for real service dogs and their people.* Don’t exploit someone else’s hardship. It’s just not ok.*


----------



## zeronightfarm (Jun 15, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I think it is highly telling that every single service dog handler and trainer I've ever talked to is very much against any registration or certification. Shouldn't they be the opinions that matter since it affects their lives a heck of a lot more than mine or yours? And they probably understand the issues a lot more thoroughly than someone who does not need a service dog?


OMG I could hug you!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog-forum/69982-life-my-service-dog.html


----------



## Flaming (Feb 2, 2013)

zhaor said:


> You don't, unless they're obviously physically deformed. The thing is, you assume they do. When people with 'fake' wheel chairs become a problem, then I guess maybe something needs to be done there too.
> 
> Service dogs aren't obvious. Like Xeph called it, service dogs can be for an 'invisible condition' So then how do you tell?


actually "fake Wheel chairs were a problem a few years ago in a town I use to live in. Mostly on busses and elevators though. People were a---holes about it so when someone who did need the chair (a relative of mine) she was harassed like nobodies business, because people couldn't tell if she was a faker or not so they just assumed that she was faking and were outright hostile to her.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

cookieface said:


> Not directly related to the conversation, but this popped up on my blog reader today:
> Happy International Assistance Dog Week: How Not to Be a Jerk to Working Dogs
> 
> A relevant quote, emphasis mine:


I completely agree, no one here seems to think its okay to fake though. Although I sometimes bend (break?) the rules about "purse dogs" I have never and would never lie about him being a service animal. Because that actually would reflect really, really poorly on Service Dogs, their handlers and the concept in general. I'm okay with people thinking I'm a bit of a jerk, but not thinking that I'm associated with or representing people with disabilities. I'm kindof paranoid my arguments might be taken that way!


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Kuma'sMom said:


> Quoted for truth. I'd frankly rather see 10 idiots get away with faking it then make the life of even one disabled person any harder than it already is.


So fake service dogs don't really make life any harder for service dog owners? or at least it doesn't affect disabled people as much as getting a simple card? Then I guess I'm confused why people care so much.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

It's not an either/or situation. Both are bad.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Fake service dogs DO make things harder for service dog owners. Faking service dog status is despicable and people shouldn't do it. But that doesn't mean that more regulations are needed. It just means that people shouldn't be despicable.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Willowy said:


> It just means that people shouldn't be despicable.


good luck with that


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Then I guess I'm confused why people care so much.


As noted by Laurelin earlier, the people that cause the biggest stink are the people that are affected the LEAST! You know who I have to defend myself against EVERY DAY? It's not fakers! It's "normal" people!


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Xeph said:


> As noted by Laurelin earlier, the people that cause the biggest stink are the people that are affected the LEAST! You know who I have to defend myself against EVERY DAY? It's not fakers! It's "normal" people!


So what would you recommend implementing to solve the issue? I've stayed out of that aspect of it because frankly, I have no experience or expertise on Service Dogs. I've also never seen a fake - at least that I noticed. Is there anything that needs to be done beyond companies making use of existing laws and asking what tasks the dog is trained in? Won't most fakers have an answer?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

aiw said:


> So what would you recommend implementing to solve the issue? I've stayed out of that aspect of it because frankly, I have no experience or expertise on Service Dogs. I've also never seen a fake - at least that I noticed. Is there anything that needs to be done beyond companies making use of existing laws and asking what tasks the dog is trained in? Won't most fakers have an answer?


She (and I) have mentioned this a few times. 

Train personnel to know what they are allowed to ask, and LET THEM ASK. That means 'is this a service dog? what tasks is it trained to do?' The fakers rarely are able to give a good answer. The people with service dogs can. When a dog, service dog or not, is disruptive : KICK THEM OUT. 

All of that's legal, and allowed. People just need to do it.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Train personnel to know what they are allowed to ask, and LET THEM ASK.


THIS!!! Too many companies DON'T know their rights. That is not my fault, it is THEIRS. And the companies that DO know their rights don't allow their employees to exercise those rights! That is not my fault, it is THEIRS!


----------



## LenoraCammarata (Jul 25, 2013)

its really hard to trust on those services at all as one could not simply rely just with a simple explanations of their owners


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> its really hard to trust on those services at all as one could not simply rely just with a simple explanations of their owners


....What? Have you not read the whole thread?


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

aiw said:


> I completely agree, no one here seems to think its okay to fake though. Although I sometimes bend (break?) the rules about "purse dogs" I have never and would never lie about him being a service animal. Because that actually would reflect really, really poorly on Service Dogs, their handlers and the concept in general. I'm okay with people thinking I'm a bit of a jerk, but not thinking that I'm associated with or representing people with disabilities. I'm kindof paranoid my arguments might be taken that way!


No, no one here is saying it's ok to pretend your dog is a service dog to get special access. But pretending your dog has the same rights as a service dog (like going into places pets aren't normally permitted) is just as bad as it's still making life more difficult for people who actually need service dogs.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

cookieface said:


> No, no one here is saying it's ok to pretend your dog is a service dog to get special access. But pretending your dog has the same rights as a service dog (like going into places pets aren't normally permitted) is just as bad as it's still making life more difficult for people who actually need service dogs.


Yes, I have wntsd to take my (small) dog at the time (bear) into places like Walmart or whatever in a sling or tote, but then again, what would be be getting out of it if the point was to socialize (he was going to be a show dog, so it was the point. I wants him to he the best dang dog he could be) then I was better off taking him to places that DIDnallow dogs so I could WALK him in on leash instead of carrying him.

I often say I wish "so & so" store would allow dogs, but I would NEVER actually take my dog where thy aren't allowed because I "can". Simply because I want to get my shoppig done ... So I take advantage that I have furkids instead of skinkids & leave them at home haha


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

cookieface said:


> No, no one here is saying it's ok to pretend your dog is a service dog to get special access. But pretending your dog has the same rights as a service dog (like going into places pets aren't normally permitted) is just as bad as it's still making life more difficult for people who actually need service dogs.


No one here is arguing that either. I don't have a similar right to access that a service dog has. As I've said many, many times stores have a right to institute and enforce whatever policies they choose. What I am arguing is that treating dogs contained in purses the same as uncontained dogs 20 times their size is illogical and there is no good justification for it. Even here, the justifications boiled down to "you can't because I say so" which as I said before explains why I can't, but not why you said so.

I have probably on occasion broken pet access rules (not laws as are suggested here - just store policy). I can't say I have for sure because as I noted I don't go into stores with posted 'no pets' signs or stores with food and I have never been asked to leave or told I was breaking any rules. At best I'm guilty of not asking permission first. 

In any event, it has literally no effect on service dogs whatsoever. I've never even seen a service dog out with Pete, let alone bothered one. Moreover, if someone did take issue with him being in the store I wouldn't lie about him being a service dog - so nothing I do reflects on them at all. As I said, if people think _I'm_ a jerk, I can live with that - especially since the only people who have ever been upset by this arrangement are on the internet. I've never had a complaint or seen any evidence I was disrupting anyone else's life. Pete is very well behaved and quiet in any event.

Still, I would not be okay with reflecting badly on another group - which is why I never associate myself with them. My actions only reflect on me.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

aiw said:


> No one here is arguing that either. I don't have a similar right to access that a service dog has. As I've said many, many times stores have a right to institute and enforce whatever policies they choose. What I am arguing is that treating dogs contained in purses the same as uncontained dogs 20 times their size is illogical and there is no good justification for it. Even here, the justifications boiled down to "you can't because I say so" which as I said before explains why I can't, but not why you said so.
> 
> I have probably on occasion broken pet access rules (not laws as are suggested here - just store policy). I can't say I have for sure because as I noted I don't go into stores with posted 'no pets' signs or stores with food and I have never been asked to leave or told I was breaking any rules. At best I'm guilty of not asking permission first.
> 
> ...


My original comment wasn't directed at you. It was to those people who seemed to say, "I do it, but don't get caught so it's ok." If that wasn't what they intended to say, then there was some misunderstanding and I apologize. 

You personally may not have caused issues (or seen issues) for service dogs and handlers, but others who think it's ok to have their dogs in stores have (as articulated by those who need service dogs). Still, someone could see you with your dog and think it's ok to bring their ill-mannered pooch next time they go that store. People could assume any dog (even poorly behaved ones) in a store is a service dogs and, yes, that reflects poorly on all service dogs whether the owner has falsely claimed that status or not.* Stores could start making access for individuals with service dogs more difficult. Business owners and others could successfully lobby for service dog registries or identification. 

As to why business owners can say "no dogs." Because they can. They have the right (with certain limitations) to run their businesses the way they see fit. Why does Sunoco sell Pepsi instead of Coke? Why does my husband's employer give him 22 days vacation and mine gives 29 days? Because they can.

Again, my original comment was not directed at you.

* I'm not saying that you are the cause of people taking their poorly behaved dogs into stores or people assuming all dogs in stores are service dogs.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

aiw said:


> No one here is arguing that either. I don't have a similar right to access that a service dog has. As I've said many, many times stores have a right to institute and enforce whatever policies they choose. What I am arguing is that treating dogs contained in purses the same as uncontained dogs 20 times their size is illogical and there is no good justification for it. Even here, the justifications boiled down to "you can't because I say so" which as I said before explains why I can't, but not why you said so.
> 
> I have probably on occasion broken pet access rules (not laws as are suggested here - just store policy). I can't say I have for sure because as I noted I don't go into stores with posted 'no pets' signs or stores with food and I have never been asked to leave or told I was breaking any rules. At best I'm guilty of not asking permission first.
> 
> ...


I would also like to add that you currently have another thread pertaining to Pete having fleas. So, you are, or possibly have, taken a dog who currently has fleas into these stores. I hadn't thought of the pest angle, but it is a possibility. Yes, he is in a purse/bag, but fleas could most certainly get out of that bag. Not to mention other pests and parasites that dogs can carry and spread.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Emmett said:


> I would also like to add that you currently have another thread pertaining to Pete having fleas. So, you are, or possibly have, taken a dog who currently has fleas into these stores. I hadn't thought of the pest angle, but it is a possibility. Yes, he is in a purse/bag, but fleas could most certainly get out of that bag. Not to mention other pests and parasites that dogs can carry and spread.


Well that's a point to consider, he hasn't been inside anywhere in a few months though so its not something that's happened.

I would of course, never take him inside if I suspected he might be sick or infested.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I did see a HUGE Newfie one time at a Walmart, me & OH turned down one of the isles & there he was, I don't know for sure what the exact disability was but you could tell the poor lady had balance issues & used the dog for support ... I politely said hello to the lady & excused myself past like I would anyone else & ignored the dog. But I couldn't help by be impressed at how this dog knew when to help her & whatever, I know it's impolite to stare but it as just so awesome to see a REAL service dog in action


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

cookieface said:


> My original comment wasn't directed at you. It was to those people who seemed to say, "I do it, but don't get caught so it's ok." If that wasn't what they intended to say, then there was some misunderstanding and I apologize.
> 
> You personally may not have caused issues (or seen issues) for service dogs and handlers, but others who think it's ok to have their dogs in stores have (as articulated by those who need service dogs). Still, someone could see you with your dog and think it's ok to bring their ill-mannered pooch next time they go that store. People could assume any dog (even poorly behaved ones) in a store is a service dogs and, yes, that reflects poorly on all service dogs whether the owner has falsely claimed that status or not.* Stores could start making access for individuals with service dogs more difficult. Business owners and others could successfully lobby for service dog registries or identification.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I did understand the comment to be directed at me - I'm probably a bit defensive as the only one in this thread who admits to taking Pete places in a purse.

If others decide to break rules - well, that's on them. I don't view myself as responsible for other people's decisions or their wrong assumptions. Especially since I do nothing to encourage either. Despite the reception this has gotten on the internet, its literally never been a problem in real life. I think that is a much better gauge of the action itself. If it were to become one, I would certainly stop.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

I saw a faker at work yesterday :\ He was well behaved for a pet dog but he sat down on the floor and scratched himself a lot and was generally filthy and not put in a sit or a heel at all. And they didn't even try to put on gear, fake or no. No one said anything.

As for fleas, I was minding my own business at work the other day when a flea suddenly jumped on and bit my hand. My dogs and I do NOT have fleas whatsoever and I had been at work for several hours before this happened. So I can only infer it came from either a dog or a customer.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Kayota said:


> I saw a faker at work yesterday :\ He was well behaved for a pet dog but he sat down on the floor and scratched himself a lot and was generally filthy and not put in a sit or a heel at all. And they didn't even try to put on gear, fake or no. No one said anything.


How do you know it was a faker? Did he tell you it was a service dog?


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Service Dog laws are fine the way they are currently. Stores and employees just need to speak up, in the correct manner of course.

As for purse dogs VS. big dogs... I just ask. Pepper can go into Bed Bath and Beyond, Gardening stores, Home Goods, and TJ Maxx in my area. I always call ahead and double check if there isn't a posted "No Dogs" sign. No dogs to me means... no dogs. Sorry purse dogs. There are people who come into the pet store I work at that are so terrified of cats that they have to call us to come "rescue" them from our store cats who sleep on the dog beds. Cats, man. They don't even want to be near you. I've had people scream and cry at the sight of a cat. Now, if I'm terrified of dogs (in a similar way that some customers are scared of cats), I'm walking around Walmart or whatever, and I see your dog... it probably doesn't matter what size he is, generally. Just because you are small doesn't mean you aren't scary. And you still probably shed, you can possibly carry fleas, and pee sometimes leaks through purses.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

aiw said:


> How do you know it was a faker? Did he tell you it was a service dog?


Even if the dog was legit, that person is doing a HORRIBLE job at maintaining their animal, and makes the rest of us look bad.

You don't bring a filthy dog into stores.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

aiw said:


> How do you know it was a faker? Did he tell you it was a service dog?


because it was filthy and they had to pull it out of the store while it tried to go down an aisle?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Kayota said:


> because it was filthy and they had to pull it out of the store while it tried to go down an aisle?


So it was obviously not a service dog, not marked as such and he didn't tell you it was a service dog. In what way was he "faking having a Service Dog"? Sounds like a pet owner who was unaware of, or just ignored your store's policy. Couldn't you have just asked him to leave?


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

RabbleFox said:


> Service Dog laws are fine the way they are currently. Stores and employees just need to speak up, in the correct manner of course.


I must say I'm impressed by how much confidence people here have in the human race. Maybe I'm just too cynical.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

zhaor said:


> I must say I'm impressed by how much confidence people here have in the human race. Maybe I'm just too cynical.


Let the fakers fake. If they are "good enough" not to be caught, cool for them. If their dog is well behaved enough to pass as a service dog and if they've their stuff together when I ask the golden questions, carry on FakeyMcFakerMcGee.* If not... You can bet your butt that I'll be asking them to leave the store.

What it comes down to is that those who need service dogs don't need anymore hassle than they already go through on a daily basis. The dog is there to help them and those of us who are perfectly able bodied should be more than willing to let the dog do his job.

*Note: I'm not saying go ahead and fake having a service dog. I think its a pretty despicable thing to do, in general. Faking a need to have a service dog is pretty low. Fluffy doesn't need to go everywhere with you.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

aiw said:


> So it was obviously not a service dog, not marked as such and he didn't tell you it was a service dog. In what way was he "faking having a Service Dog"? Sounds like a pet owner who was unaware of, or just ignored your store's policy. Couldn't you have just asked him to leave?


It says right on the front door "service animals only" or something to that effect. I'm sure she was trying to pass it off as an SD. I also am not allowed to ask seeing as how I work at Walmart.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Don't be so sure. A lot of people simply ignore "no dogs" signs. Unless you ask and they claim the dog is a SD (yet can't explain what tasks it's been trained to perform), you can't know they're a faker.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> Don't be so sure. A lot of people simply ignore "no dogs" signs. Unless you ask and they claim the dog is a SD (yet can't explain what tasks it's been trained to perform), you can't know they're a faker.


I'm inclined to think this way. In order to fake something you have to keep up some kind of pretense. There doesn't seem to be a pretense, just flagrantly ignoring rules.

Its too bad they won't let you ask, Kayota. It's within the store's rights... Maybe they don't think the benefit of asking is worth the trouble?


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

aiw said:


> I'm inclined to think this way. In order to fake something you have to keep up some kind of pretense. There doesn't seem to be a pretense, just flagrantly ignoring rules.
> 
> Its too bad they won't let you ask, Kayota. It's within the store's rights... Maybe they don't think the benefit of asking is worth the trouble?


No pretense necessary. I worked at Walmart and saw people with dogs in purses, riding in strollers and sometimes in backpacks. There was no attempt to keep up any such appearance or pretense. When confronted they simply said, "Oh, he's a service dog." Unfortunately, at Walmart, that is typically enough to get employees to back off.

Walmart's policy states that ONLY door greeters and salaried members of management are allowed to inquire about a dog's SD status. Typically, neither of those parties will use a "follow up" question about specific tasks...and even in cases of flagrant violation MOST will not have it in them to ask the pet owner to leave. Walmart has an unflattering imagine that they desperately do not like (memos about being mindful of "public perception" ALL THE TIME) and if a story was posting about them "hassling the handicapped"...well you can imagine how they would play out.

Walmart is EXTREMELY litigation wary. Almost every policy is designed in such a way as to minimize the risk of a lawsuit. You also have to keep in mind that as a multi-state corporation they have designed company wide policy to accommodate ALL state laws. So, despite Kansas being "at will" and not requiring an employer to give reason or notice for firing an employee, Walmart's policy for firing adheres to the rules you would find in "right to work" states. Which means that even though state law permits it, if Walmart terminates an employee in an "at will" manner that employee can turnaround and sue AND win because company policy wasn't followed. 

*There are SOME stores that are extremely well run and employees that know their rights and follow through, but on a whole the company is extremely bureaucratic and top heavy.


----------



## Sparkles123 (Dec 3, 2012)

sassafras said:


> You ask them if their dog is a service dog, and what tasks it is trained to do. Which business owners are allowed to do under the law.


Wrong! Nobody may ask about the condition of a disabled person or their service dog (that IS THE LAW) and that's the way it should be!

There will always be cheaters! Everywhere!


----------



## zeronightfarm (Jun 15, 2011)

Sparkles123 said:


> Wrong! Nobody may ask about the condition of a disabled person or their service dog (that IS THE LAW) and that's the way it should be!
> 
> There will always be cheaters! Everywhere!


Actually you are wrong. You can ask "Is that a Service dog, and what tasks is it trained to do" Thats it, thats not asking what the persons disability is.

"When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task."

Taken from here: http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Sparkles123 said:


> Wrong! Nobody may ask about the condition of a disabled person or their service dog (that IS THE LAW) and that's the way it should be!


Wrong! Asking if the dog is a service dog and what tasks it is trained to perform (which is legal, thanks zeronightfarm for the link and quote) is not asking about the condition of a disabled person.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Wrong! Asking if the dog is a service dog and what tasks it is trained to perform (which is legal, thanks zeronightfarm for the link and quote) is not asking about the condition of a disabled person.


Wrong! I don't know how you're wrong but I just want to join in the fun (something in parenthesis) and not feel left out.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Sparkles123 said:


> Wrong! Nobody may ask about the condition of a disabled person or their service dog (that IS THE LAW) and that's the way it should be!


Clearly you did not read this thread before posting in it. The two questions that can legally be asked have been discussed throughout the thread.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

BAZINGA! *Snerks*


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I have a question, if a service dog is intact, does that cause any problems for you as the handler? not bahavorial wise but with people in the stores or wherever?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

No. I would never have an intact bitch as an SD, but the males pose no problem. Nobody has ever even noticed.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Xeph said:


> No. I would never have an intact bitch as an SD, but the males pose no problem. Nobody has ever even noticed.


I know this is a dumb question, but why not an intact bitch? Is it a sanitary reason? 

@ Emmett I have been told by friends who have worked for Wally World about the horrors of horrible abusive customers & the fact that they are specifically instructed NOT to say ANYTHING back to that could even be taken as remotely argumentative ... I had a chance to work there (hard they had good benefits) but I was like "Uh ... No thanks."


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Xeph said:


> No. I would never have an intact bitch as an SD, but the males pose no problem. Nobody has ever even noticed.


Are they well trained enough to not be distracted by bitches in heat? Cause otherwise, it seems like a maybe unlikely but still potential risk.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I don't want to be taking a bitch that's bleeding out in public. Even with a diaper on. It is gross and unprofessional IMO.

My boys are taught to ignore bitches in season, and we run into a lot of them (they work at the big dog shows).


----------



## swack (Nov 10, 2012)

I think it is BS that people are doing this and I believe they are going to make it more difficult for people that actually need service dogs.

That being said....

It is a huge pain in the ass that there are only a handful of places nearby (mostly pet or pet related stores) where I can take my dog. It sure would be nice to be able to take him around town more often. Funnily enough, there is a bar in town that lets Lincoln in. I was walking him when he was still a pup and the owner was sitting in front and fell in love with him. She insisted that we come inside, so I got to have a beer and Lincoln got lots of great socialization. Win-Win.


----------



## ColorMePaisley (Jul 1, 2013)

Ehhh... Why?? Why do people do all of these crappy things. Ruining a good thing for those who actually need it. I mean really, your dog can stay at home for a couple of hours.


----------

