# "Service dog"...sigh...



## ipreferpi (May 9, 2009)

Howdy, I'm currently in a situation where I'm at my wits end, and I really don't know what the right thing to do is. So I'm hoping maybe I can get some feedback here to help (I'd really appreciate it).

Okay, the situation is this: I'm a dog trainer at a big box pet store (I'd like to think I fall into the category of one of the ones that tries to do their job). I've been working in this place for a little over a year, and have always gotten pretty good feedback from my students. I do my best to accommodate people, teach the dogs, and try and understand their issues/frustrations ect (dogs and people alike). But one of my students right now, is not only annoying me to my core, but is really doing something I feel is unethical. 

She's an okay person, she's never been offensive to me in a direct way, but she is claiming to be "disabled", which some people truly are, and I understand disabilities don't always have to be visible. She has a dog that she is calling her service dog. This dog is a non neutered (she thinks it's "mean") young Pomeranian. The issue is twofold, first, this dog is a sweet enough little guy, but I don't think he is either suited for or happy with "service work", which basically is just her toting him around everywhere. He is almost a year old, and is still having issues with basic potty training. He'll frequently eliminate in the store, which would be no big deal, except she's calling him a service dog, and bringing him into stores and restaurants. He also barks, jumps up, and nips when excited. He's a sweet dog, but he really just needs to be a regular pet... 

I've tried explaining this to her, and telling her she needs to work with him more, and that the hour we spend together each week won't magically make him a well trained dog. I told her she was going to have to exercise him (which she does not), and work with him ATLEAST 30 minutes a day for a year or two before he'd be ready to start the work to BECOME a service animal, at which point she needs to go to a private instructor that is experienced with service animals (which I am DEFINITELY not). And that pushing him into these situations is not only illegal (in the case of stores and restaurants) but is just making his current issues worse. To which she responds that she's frustrated, and that he's a stupid dog. I told her poms aren't stupid, but that their breed can sometimes be a little stubborn. She then decides that she's going to GET RID OF HIM. And wants to know what cute, fluffy dogs between 3 and 5 lbs are "smart". 

I really don't know what to do now, my heart goes out to this little guy, who's only real issue is a stupid owner. I feel that working with her is in some ways ethically wrong, because I know that she is taking him out and impersonating a service animal, which only hurts the reputations of the true service dogs. But I don't know how to get this through to her. She also wants me to help her find a good breeder for her next dog, because she "accidentally" bought this one from what from all accounts sounds like a puppy mill. I want to help both her current and her next dog avoid a bad situation, but I also feel like enabling this woman is wrong, and damaging to the real service dogs...

Sorry for the long post, but that's been building up for a while. If anyone has any ideas, either for dealing with the woman. Or for the current or potential future dog, I would really appreciate it.


----------



## ladyshadowhollyjc (Oct 28, 2008)

You're right... this woman is being extremely rude and she is damaging the reputations of true service dogs.

What exactly is the purpose of this "service dog" she has? Can it actually preform any services? 

I don't know what to tell you honestly. I honestly can say that I greatly dislike people like the woman you have described.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Unfortunately the law may be too liberal. If the dog is trained to preform tasks as an accommodation to a disability, it has public access right. However, there are limits to poorly trained dogs that foul public places or are aggressive. You may want to do some reading at www.iaadp.org 

Those people dragging glorified pets into public places are the enemy of those with dogs trained to assist them. Self training is legal. However, a school with team of professionals can produce much better dogs. If you are impaired, a trained dog from a school is the best option. Each school has its own financial arraingements. The dog guide school we raise puppies for will send people a plane ticket, pick them up at the airport, put them up in the dorm, train them, furnish the dog, harness, lead, etc. Cost? 0 Obgligations? 0 Many of the dog users do participate in fundraisers and promoting the program. I frequently work with many of them it those activities.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> If you are impaired, a trained dog from a school is the best option.


I disagree. There are many many well trained service animals that are HOT (Handler Owner Trained). Mine is one of them.

If you have no dog experience, then yes, a trained dog from a school can be a better option, but this is not always true.

And not ALL service orgs charge "0". And the wait lists can be EXTREMELY long...not everybody has 3-4 years to wait for their independence.

That said, this person needs to have a stuffed animal, not a dog.

Little dogs can make WONDERFUL assistance dogs for people, and the first non guide dog I ever saw was a Papillon! He helped his owner reach things on shelves (she even grabbed a bunch of bananas from the counter) and picked things up off the floor. The large breeds were too obtrusive for the handler, so a Papillon is what she got. Marvelous little dog.

It sounds like this person is an imposter.

If you want to ask what the dog is trained to do for tasks, that is *perfectly legal*. You cannot ask her what her disability is, but you can ask what the dog is trained for. You can even ask for specifics of those tasks.


----------



## Maura (Mar 17, 2009)

Tell her plainly that the big box store you work at is not certified as a service dog trainer. Tell her that you are not a service dog trainer. I know you already have, but you need to say it in no uncertain terms, and stop allowing her dog in your class. Stop giving her attention. When she demands more attention, send her to the manager and walk away. Remember, you reward good behavior and ignore bad behavior. And no, this is not a nice person.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Tell her that Pomeranians are very smart dogs but they require a smart & patient owner to train them.


----------



## Max's Mom (Feb 24, 2009)

I wonder if this woman has am emotional/mental issue. Some people have service dogs to comfort them in stressful situations. Although many people use this as an excuse to take their dog into stores. You can train your own service dog. As Xeph said, it can take years and ALOT of money to get a service dog. They can cost $50,000. I am severely visualy impaired and qualify for a guide dog but I can't afford one and don't need a dog trained to the extent that a totally blind person does. Max suits my needs perfectly. A shelter dog that I trained.


----------



## ipreferpi (May 9, 2009)

I actually know what she claims as her disability, I just didn't feel like I should share something like that even if I'm not saying her name. I did ask her what tasks he performs, or what ones she wants him to do (thinking that I might be able to direct her to someone more experienced if I knew what she needed). All she was able to answer me was that petting him calms her down, which I'm pretty sure is not a "trained task", in the sense she doesn't give him a command to provide tactile stimulation or whatever, and he responds. It's more her picking him up and holding him like a doll. 

What she really wants is "for him to you know, be trained well enough to follow her outside of a leash". 

Thank you so much, even if I can't figure out a direct way to deal with the problem, it's nice to know I'm not alone in thinking this is both annoying and wrong. 

I'm currently just trying to think of ways to get her to give him to a breed specific rescue, instead of trying to sell him on craigslist, which is her plan.


----------



## anthrogirl80 (Jan 14, 2010)

I have to agree with Max's Mom. 

I have a friend who has a small, very untrained, mini foxie. She has three children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders and in order to have him in their home the childrens' therapist offered to write a statement supporting the fact that Jasper is a 'service dog' because he has an uncanny ability to calm them.

I am hoping to work with Jonah to achieve a much more interactive calming service for my own daughter (also autistic, although high functioning). It'll require work, and he'll never really be accepted as a 'service dog' by anyone, but that's what I'm hoping he'll eventually be. 

Depending on the disability that this woman has, you may find it difficult to reason with her. If she is autistic, I would seriously consider other ways to help yourself cope. She'll be too stuck in her own way of thinking to acknowledge that the problem may be her own. I do hope that you can convince her that a breed specific rescue will be the best option for him. 

There really should be laws against people being allowed to adopt and discard dogs at will. It infuriates me when someone adopts a dog, doesn't train it and then assumes the dog is damaged goods and then discards it like it was nothing.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

Keechak said:


> Tell her that Pomeranians are very smart dogs but they require a smart & patient owner to train them.


ROFL Now THAT would be fun to say to her!


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

> What she really wants is "for him to you know, be trained well enough to follow her outside of a leash".


I know you have tried to explain it to her, but that is far from what a service dog actually is.



> Thank you so much, even if I can't figure out a direct way to deal with the problem, it's nice to know I'm not alone in thinking this is both annoying and wrong.


You are not alone in your thinking. This could be one of the most annoying situations I've read about on this forum. I wish I had more advice to offer you.



> I'm currently just trying to think of ways to get her to give him to a breed specific rescue, instead of trying to sell him on craigslist, which is her plan.


The only thing worse than an owner that doesn't accept their role in getting a dog to behave properly is one that sells it on the internet to recoup their costs.

I'm sorry that I have no advice to give you. It sounds like you are dealing with a person that in her mind already has it figured out. As a college instructor who deals with students like this every semester, I can tell you that I feel for you, and I'll pray for you in this situation and for the dog to find the right home.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

people with anxiety issues can have service dogs who's main function is to offer comfort to their owner. The dog might not be trained to perform any other duties. That said, they need to be potty trained at the absolute least and socialized around other dogs and people of all shapes and sizes.

I believe there are a lot of people who abuse this situation. I used to train service dogs for lower functioning recipients. It would annoy me when people who just thought it was cool to have a dog go places with them would apply. Needless to say, they got put to the bottom of the list and it would have taken years before they would have got a dog. Thankfully, most of them got sick of waiting and moved on.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

I was under the impression a service dog had to pass some sort of certification before it has right of public access? Safetry of the public and all that.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

TxRider said:


> I was under the impression a service dog had to pass some sort of certification before it has right of public access? Safetry of the public and all that.


No. When you bring a dog into a store, the only rights a store has is to ask you "Is she a service animal?" and "Are you disabled". And the only answer you have to give is Yes/No answers, you don't have to explain yourself to anyone. If they try to ask for further information, you can ignore them and if they persist, call the police on the store.


----------



## crzy_brunette77 (May 19, 2009)

I don't know much about what to do with this woman, but I do have a suggestion from personal expereince about what to do with the dog.

I fostered a Great Dane who was wildly out of control and meant to be a "service dog" for an autistic boy that was absolutely terrified of him. The family was taking him to the vet to be euthanized when I saw them and paid $20 to take him home. I rehomed him with an amazing trainer who has given him a lot of guidance and a chance at life as a loving pet.

If you're worried about this dog ending up on craiglist then this could be a possiblity. If you can take the dog from here and not necesarilly keep it but ensure that it goes to a breed specific rescue or to an owner who can handle him, it would at least do some good. I know this is not for everybody and is a little extreme, but if you feel like it's something you could handle, I would consider it. At least it saves this dog (who I think you said is not fixed? Would be a puppy mill's dream!), even if the woman's thinking is not changed.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RBark said:


> No. When you bring a dog into a store, the only rights a store has is to ask you "Is she a service animal?" and "Are you disabled". And the only answer you have to give is Yes/No answers, you don't have to explain yourself to anyone. If they try to ask for further information, you can ignore them and if they persist, call the police on the store.


Could a store not also call the police to have them verify the animal is in fact a service dog?

Would not the police of called by the dogs owner then verify the animal was indeed a service animal?

Anyone could take any animal anywhere if there is no recourse, and not even ability to ask. It makes no sense.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

TxRider said:


> Could a store not also call the police to have them verify the animal is in fact a service dog?
> 
> Would not the police of called by the dogs owner then verify the animal was indeed a service animal?
> 
> Anyone could take any animal anywhere if there is no recourse, and not even ability to ask. It makes no sense.


No, the store can not call the police to verify. If he store did call the police, the police would come to you and ask "Is this a service dog?" And once you said yes, the situation would be over and the store would get their hand slapped or even fined for calling the police unnecessarily. 

As for the sense of it... you are looking at it from the perspective of someone who is not disabled.

The point of a service animal is to make life easier for a disabled person. Not easy, just easier. A lot of disabilities are invisible. My disability, for instance, I look and act like a normal person. It's more obvious when it's a service dog for the blind. But I could have a hearing guide dog and nobody would understand what I need him for unless I told them.

What would the point be of allowing public access and using service dogs to remedy disabilities if we got harassed by stores every single time we entered one for proof that our dog is indeed a service dog? Is it fair to make the law stricter because of a bunch of assholes who take advantage of it, and punish the disabled for it though it's no fault of their own?

That's not fair either.

As such, I am 10000000% against making the law in regards to service animals stricter. Disabled people have it rough enough, no sense making it harder for them. We already draw a lot of unwanted attention every time we go to a store with our dogs. Drawing even MORE attention because stores confront us every time... that's not right.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

As I said in my first post, the law is very liberal. A dog doesn't need to be certified. A store or someplace is allowed to ask what the dog is trained to do. If it isn't trained to do specific tasks, it isn't a service dog. There are psychological support dogs, but I couldn't findmy link to more info on them. They don't have the full rights of a service dog. 

This is very difficult for stores and such. They can get in trouble for both denying access and letting the wrong dog in.


----------



## ipreferpi (May 9, 2009)

Thank you for the advice and sympathy everyone. I spoke with my manager today, and while there's nothing we can do at the moment, as she has paid in full for her class and hasn't violated any rules. I have been assured that were she to come back in for a second class, I would not need to teach her, and the class would go to the other trainer in the store (I feel bad for her, but she really doesn't care as much about this kinda' thing...so it'll probably be fine). I spoke with the woman on the phone about the possibility of taking the dog (thank you for the idea!), but unless I have 800$ she refuses. I tried to also convince her to neuter him before she sells him, but she also declined, saying people would pay more for him if he wasn't fixed. So the poor little guy is pretty much stuck. I did get it into her head that maybe her family would want the dog, so I'm hoping she'll try that..though if they're anything like her maybe it would be best to not...

As to her disability, she is not autistic. This dog does nothing in the way of service except provide her with a fashion accessory. I feel terrible for not taking the dog, but I just don't have that kind of money, it would be detrimental to my own dog (it would have to be taken out of his emergency vet fund) and I won't do that. 

I think I'm just going to tell her where she can find an ethical breeder (she has settled on getting a mini poodle), and then just getting away from the whole situation. 

Thanks for the link labs, that was really helpful!


----------



## anthrogirl80 (Jan 14, 2010)

ipreferpi said:


> As to her disability, she is not autistic. This dog does nothing in the way of service except provide her with a fashion accessory


So she's a Paris Hilton type of woman? You know, that's a pretty severe disability...but not one that should allow dog ownership of any sort. I think I'd much rather be autistic (which I am) than someone that sees dogs as a fashion accessory. 

What are the chances that the breeder you choose will refuse to sell this woman one of their puppies? What would the woman do? If you gave her a list of reputable breeders that refused to sell to her, do you think she'd understand after a while? Do the breeders over there screen portential owners for suitability often (I find they don't here in Australia). Or would she merely turn to craigslist?


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

I hope this doesnt come off rude, but I have read the whole thread and in regards to service dogs....Disabled people are issued special permits for parking why couldnt they be issued special tags for their dogs? 

I get very annoyed when people bring their dogs into places where they should not be...with the exception of service dogs. I dont take my dogs to the grocery store so why should someone else do it. And I dont work now but I used to work for a store that sold all types of things, food included and our manager never told anyone they couldnt bring their dogs in (service or not) There was a lady who used to come in with her big dog sometimes (not all the time) and one day it got very close to brushing up against my leg...as a reaction I stepped back, it was a lab and my husband is allergic to dogs and labs are the worst. She got all offended and gave me crap saying her dog was friendly and I am over reacting and blah blah blah...when the bottom line is he shouldnt have even been in the store. Anyways now I am rambling LOL.


----------



## anthrogirl80 (Jan 14, 2010)

Hang on...are you guys actually saying you're technically allowed to take dogs into these places?

In Australia I've seen people asked to either leave the dog outside or leave themselves. We often see dogs tied up outside of grocery stores and corner shops because you can't take them in there. I'm pretty sure the owners/managers can ask that you not bring the dog in. 

Misty I don't think that issuing permits for dogs is rude or offensive. I quite like that idea. Most service dogs are trained for their specific purposes so getting a permit could be issued when the dog is handed over to the new owner. But for those other dogs that provide comfort and psychological support, perhaps a letter from a psychiatrist (or some other form of assessment) could suffice in allowing a permit to be granted. And of course, dogs should have a clean bill of health, C5 vaccinations up to date, good temperament and trained in at least basic skills, before a permit is issued to dogs that haven't been specifically trained for a service.

Is there already something like this in place? It would certainly make sense to put something in place...much more effective for a shop assistant to ask to see a permit for a dog in question, than to just ask 'is this a service dog?'


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Hang on...are you guys actually saying you're technically allowed to take dogs into these places?


Service dogs, yes. Not just any dog. Some people can lie and say that their dog is a service dog, that's true too. But that's not very frequent.

And if I may speak frankly (I'm not offended or trying to be hostile to anyone). The decision of what is and is not legal, what should and should not be done, is none of anyone's business but that of the disabled. We (the disabled) will decide what is OK and what is not. And we, the disabled decided this is how the law should be.

Those who are not disabled have no concept of what we have to deal with. Good intentions, maybe, but to be honest, I really don't care what intentions are. We know what is best for ourselves, and this is the judgment we have made. We don't need someone else trying to tell us they know better, because simply put, they do not. Their perception of the world is only that of someone who is not disabled. They will never see the world the way we do.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

We have the ADA that requires the disabled to be admitted anywhere the public is and with what ever accommodations they require, ramps, elevators curb cuts, whatever including service animals. Certifications are available for dogs, but some feel it is an imposition to have to show ID where others don't. The service dog schools issue ID tags for the dogs and a photo ID for the person. They also are given a pocket digest of the state laws. They still get turned away sometimes. If they sue, they win. 

In general, pets aren't allowed around food, excluded from grocery stores and restaurants, but I think by a patchwork of state and local laws. The puppies we foster for service dog schools are a gray area. Perhaps I do need a psych support dog, but there is no such diagnosis. Since the puppies aren't an accommodation for a disability, the ADA doesn't apply. We are given service dog tags for them. That exempts them from the laws prohibiting pets. We are very seldom turned away if we have a chance to talk to somebody with some authority.


----------



## anthrogirl80 (Jan 14, 2010)

RBark said:


> And if I may speak frankly (I'm not offended or trying to be hostile to anyone). The decision of what is and is not legal, what should and should not be done, is none of anyone's business but that of the disabled. We (the disabled) will decide what is OK and what is not. And we, the disabled decided this is how the law should be.


Ah ok, thanks for clarifying that for me.
I don't think many people will be offended by your thinking. I know that each disabled community views things differently, and that each individual within that community is different. As I said, I am autistic, and while most of the time I appear 'normal' there are days when there is obviously something 'wrong' with me according to societal norms.

I have to disagree, in the most respectful way as I don't want to get into an argument, that disabled people should decide what is legal and what isn't legal. Everything else you said I agree with 100%. But for minority groups to develop their own laws without taking into consideration the rest of the community would cause chaos. The disability movement has really pushed for some great things in the past, but I believe that the push for equality and acceptance of diversity needs to be that...a push (albeit not such a hard one!). [edit] I just re-read that sentence and wanted to slap myself...what I meant to say was "the disability movement has really pushed for some great things in the past, but I believe that laws should be made with the input of all communities effected by a decision...in this case the abled and disabled communities". 

My only concern with service dogs and permits is that certain people will take advantage of the fact that permits are not currently needed and will take dogs anywhere they like and lie to be able to do so. 

Having said all this, one of my biggest issues is dealing with injustice and inequality. I hate (I mean absolutely detest, loathe and hate to the very core of my soul) the way that so many people lie to get their own way and manipulate the world. It's a personal issue (stemming from the fact that a) I can't lie well, and b) I can't tell if people are lying) and one that probably drives my interest in a permit system. I know that Jonah will never be a true service dog and I wouldn't get a permit for him, as much as I'd want to, but the fact is when we chose him I did take into consideration the possibility that he could acquire a similar skill-set.


----------



## anthrogirl80 (Jan 14, 2010)

I like the tag idea. That seems pretty good. 

I guess each state/com munity can decide to deal with it in a different manner.


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

anthrogirl80 said:


> Hang on...are you guys actually saying you're technically allowed to take dogs into these places?


You are not allowed to take dogs in to places like stores etc, but people do...I have seen them in purses, strollers, shopping carts and just being carried.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> The service dog schools issue ID tags for the dogs and a photo ID for the person. They also are given a pocket digest of the state laws.


I'm sure you know this, but as a general statement so there's no misunderstanding. Some (not all) service dog schools issue tags, others don't. This is debated hotly. The problem a lot of people have with service ID's is that it fosters misunderstanding.

One person goes into Target, and is stopped. They show their service dog ID. Later, another person goes, and is stopped again. They don't show their ID. The store thinks they are supposed to have ID (based on previous interaction). You can see where that would cause issues.

Same thing for answering questions. A lot of people will instruct you that you should not ever answer any questions other than the 2 legal ones they are allowed to ask. That way, in the future, the store does not think it's in their right to ask more than those two questions.

I, personally, am of the belief that they have absolutely no right to stop me, at all. I do not need to show ID. My dog does not need to have special leashes or special vests. Fortunately for me, with the exception of them being allowed to ask me only two questions, there is no law that requires me to have ID's, special leashes, or vests.


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

Hey, R, this is slightly off topic, but if I recall correctly, you were planning on training Priscilla as a hearing dog. Are you in the market for another companion who could serve in that same capacity?


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RBark said:


> Service dogs, yes. Not just any dog. Some people can lie and say that their dog is a service dog, that's true too. But that's not very frequent.
> 
> And if I may speak frankly (I'm not offended or trying to be hostile to anyone). The decision of what is and is not legal, what should and should not be done, is none of anyone's business but that of the disabled. We (the disabled) will decide what is OK and what is not. And we, the disabled decided this is how the law should be.
> 
> Those who are not disabled have no concept of what we have to deal with. Good intentions, maybe, but to be honest, I really don't care what intentions are. We know what is best for ourselves, and this is the judgment we have made. We don't need someone else trying to tell us they know better, because simply put, they do not. Their perception of the world is only that of someone who is not disabled. They will never see the world the way we do.


So what if I can't see the world exactly the way a disabled person can?

I can't see it the way a woman can either.

I also can't see it in the way a person with a dog phobia would either, but I could see the fear and shaking the woman in front of me at petsmart was doing during her panic attack when I got in line behind her with a large GSD this afternoon. When a big dog came out of the grooming shop at the other end of the checkout aisle I had to take my dogs away, I thought she was going to climb over the register.

People can empathize and do, and it's not all about disabled people, we are a society of all kinds of people. Some are scared to death of any dog, some are very allergic, it's not all about the owner of a service dog.

Having nothing in place to keep people from taking advantage just seems strange and wrong to me. It seems it only harms people who really do need a service dog.

Like handicapped parking places and jerks taking advantage of it.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

anthrogirl80 said:


> --snip for length--.



I appreciate your concerns. But try and look at it this way.

We are looking for equality. What is equal about having us be required to get stopped and show ID's every time we enter a store? That's not equality.

Yes there is a downside. However, how often do you see people with out of control dogs in stores? It's certainly not a every day thing. You (general you, abled people, not you specifically) can deal with a minor inconvinence every what? Month? So that the disabled can overcome a major inconvinence every day of their life, every hour, every minute. 

Surely you can put up with the random asshole for 5 minutes of your day, once a month... so that the millions of disabled people can have a better life 365 days a year?

So yes, I believe in equality. And there's nothing equal about being singled out because of my disablility and the service dog I have to accommodate it.


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

TxRider said:


> Like handicapped parking places and jerks taking advantage of it.


Bad example. One is technically required to have a placard or special plate to park in a handicapped spot, but I see people without either in these special places on a regular basis. This would only seem to prove that it doesn't matter if special identification is required or not...jerks will _always _take advantage.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

FilleBelle said:


> Hey, R, this is slightly off topic, but if I recall correctly, you were planning on training Priscilla as a hearing dog. Are you in the market for another companion who could serve in that same capacity?


I am, yes. But circumstance does not allow it at the moment. My next dog is going to be a German Shepherd, or Flat Coated Retriever. The goal will be the same, if the dog is capable.



TxRider said:


> So what if I can't see the world exactly the way a disabled person can?
> 
> I can't see it the way a woman can either.
> 
> ...


See, this is kind of what I'm getting at. You're telling me it's not all about disabled people. Well, I'm telling you it's not all about abled people.

Yes, people can empathize. But why are abled people making decisions that, for the most part, only affect disabled people? Why do you feel abled people should have control over us? Do you believe we cannot self-govern? That we are incapable? It's not all about you. The ADA is FOR the disabled, by the disabled.


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

anthrogirl80 said:


> My only concern with service dogs and permits is that certain people will take advantage of the fact that permits are not currently needed and will take dogs anywhere they like and lie to be able to do so.
> 
> Having said all this, one of my biggest issues is dealing with injustice and inequality. I hate (I mean absolutely detest, loathe and hate to the very core of my soul) the way that so many people lie to get their own way and manipulate the world. It's a personal issue (stemming from the fact that a) I can't lie well, and b) I can't tell if people are lying) and one that probably drives my interest in a permit system. I know that Jonah will never be a true service dog and I wouldn't get a permit for him, as much as I'd want to, but the fact is when we chose him I did take into consideration the possibility that he could acquire a similar skill-set.


This more my reasoning for asking...Not that disable people should have to have proof but to stop others from taking avantage and lieing about it. 

And I could be wrong about this but in my searching on the net just now...it appears that in Canada a dog has to be certified to be a service dog.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

True enough I guess, but there is a legal penalty at least if they get caught parking in a handicapped spot.

From what R seems to be saying, there can be no getting caught for the person taking advantage.

Not that it upsets me, I would just as soon dogs are allowed everywhere service or not.


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

TxRider said:


> Not that it upsets me, I would just as soon dogs are allowed everywhere service or not.


See I dont. I dont want dogs in the grocery store if they dont need to be there. And even if its not the grocery store, allowing so many dogs in places would send my husband (and I am sure many others)into a full blown asthma attack everywhere he went.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Actually, aside from health department regulations, whether or not dogs and other animals are allowed into stores and other public places is generally up to the property owner and/or tenant. From the NY Times:


> The managers of the Gap informed me at every store where I inquired that “the corporate policy is to allow dogs in our stores.”


 (City Room blog)

It gets really fun when its not just service dogs but service ferrets, service snakes, service rats and more. San Francisco was a very amusing place  

A person with a service animal CAN be asked to leave if they are presenting a danger or disturbance to others in the same way that a store or restaurant can ask a person who stands in the middle of the store screaming or throwing things to leave. So long as the "right to refuse service" is based on actions and not a disability in and of itself. Untrained "service" dog bites someone? Ask the owner to leave. Service dog stands there quietly and another person is scared of the dog? Tough crap.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Actually, aside from health department regulations, whether or not dogs and other animals are allowed into stores and other public places is generally up to the property owner and/or tenant. From the NY Times


I'm not 100% sure if that's what you mean by health dept regulations. But basically, any place that sells food (even packaged food like candies, drinks, etc) is not allowed to let dogs in.

But if the store does not have any food or drinks for sale, it's up to the store.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

> I'm not 100% sure if that's what you mean by health dept regulations. But basically, any place that sells food (even packaged food like candies, drinks, etc) is not allowed to let dogs in.


Yep, that's what I meant. I _think_ there are some additional regs on non-food places in relation to stuff like medical facilities but that too could be location specific. I am mostly going on what I learned in the police academy.

Personally, I see a service dog like any device or aid to help someone. Lets say someone is in a wheelchair, it would be wrong not to allow them into my store AND it is none of my business why they have need of the chair. BUT, if they, say, keep running over people's toes on purpose, then it is reasonable to ask them to stop (i.e. control their dog) or leave (i.e. well, leave)


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

TxRider said:


> True enough I guess, but there is a legal penalty at least if they get caught parking in a handicapped spot.


I don't get the analogy with the handicapped parking either. In order to legally park in a handicapped parking spot, I have to have a handicapped placard or tag. In order to get one or the other, I need a letter from my doctor certifying my need for such a placard. At least that's how it goes in my state. Why is it so unreasonable to ask that service dogs (or any service animal) require a letter from one's doctor and that the dogs wear a special vest, collar, leash or whatever to designate them as service animals?



> Not that it upsets me, I would just as soon dogs are allowed everywhere service or not.


I would not want this at all.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

I personally have no issues with service dogs in stores.

What makes me angry when little granny brings in her ankle biter and trys to claim it's a service dog as it pee's on everything in sight. I'm sorry, but I'd be all for having to have your service dogs actually certified and wear some sort of Tag so that way I can kick those who are just lieing out and tell them were to go. I'd love to take my dog out to more places, but you don't see me dragging my dog to Walmart or Target.

I personally think that law is WAY too vague and should be stiffened at least where you MUST have a tag (like a rabies tag) on your service dog at all times. That way I do not need to walk up to you and ask you those stupid question, instead I can go back on my way to being yelled at by the lady with the ankle biter about something.

I LOVE when one of my normal hearing dogs comes in with his owner. He wears this nice vest that says "Service dog". No questions need to be asked, I know from across the store who he is and why that dog is in the store. I also LOVE it when the guide dogs in training comes in because while they don't have the same rights as service dogs, we still allow them in because we know what they are doing and that the people who own them are responsible.

I know as a disabled person you do not want to be asked questions, but I MUST ask the questions and I hate doing it. A very simple tag check from a ways away would be great. No need to bother you at all unless you need help and we both can go on our ways.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

I understand your frustration with the rare person who abuses the law.

That said, the ADA was made for the disabled, by the disabled. You do not have to understand. If you were disabled, you would understand. Instead of criticizing our judgment, I hope people can learn acceptance.

The law is open like this because the disabled is telling the world they want to be equal. They don't want to be stopped for any reason. They should not have to wear special ID's. 

I mean, really. Would YOU want to be forced to wear a badge that says "I have issues"? Would you want to be forced to have your baggage exposed to the whole world? Your embarrassing secret shown for the world to see, even though you had no control over it?

I doubt anyone would want to be forced to wear a badge on their shirt that says "My parents abused me as a child and as a result I'm terrified of parents walking around with children" So that parents with children can easily identify you and get out of your way?? Is that equal? Fair?

It's not. 

Sorry but, we know this to be true, a fact for all. 

The world needs a little more acceptance in it. Let the disabled have what little equality in life they can get. The downside is so insignificantly small in comparision.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

Why is it so unreasonable to require regulation? If we are going to give the disabled priviliges that other people don't have (such as parking closer to the store or taking a dog in a store) why should we not regulate this so people don't take advantage of the law? I would think the disabled would want this. A person like the OP mentioned makes all disabled people look bad.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

If a Service Dog misbehaves and places someone in danger, you as a business 
owner have the right to ask the partner to get control of the animal, or please leave. 
This should be only an isolated incident, and can not be used to determine future 
access based upon what "might" happen or has happened in the past. A person 
with a Service Dog cannot be refused entry based on the actions of another Service 
animal. Example: You cannot say "Oh, that last Service Dog team that was in here 
left a mess, so I'm not letting any Service Dogs into my store anymore." This is 
discrimination and can be punishable by law. Remember, too, that Service Dogs are 
just that, DOGS, and they can have bad days just like people can. They are not 
robots, and cannot be expected to act perfectly all the time.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

R you should know that I could care less about someone being disabled (heck my mom is mentally disabled). 

If a store like Target/Walmart gets busted for having someones pet in the store by the health department do you know who will get in trouble? Not that person with the pet. Target/Walmart has to pay a HUGE fine for it. Why it doesn't hurt the stores, it hurts the employees of the store because we have to pay for it. Last year we had idiots who sold wine to underage kids and were busted for it. It came from ALL of our paychecks to cover the fines. I'm not even normally a cashier but it still came out of my paycheck via hours that the store couldn't give to it's employees because they had to use that money to pay for the fine.

This is why it's importaint to me that ONLY people who NEED service dogs/pets are allowed to have them, not the lady up the street who can't leave little foo-foo at home for 10mins while she runs to the store to get her prozac. I kick people out at least 2 tmes a month for having their dogs with them. I HATE having to go up to someone who has a service dog and ask them if it really is a service dog. Do you know how much of an jerk it makes me feel like? I'd hate it. 

Thats why I would LOVE just a simple tag that is universal that shows that your dog is indeed a service dog, and that is that. You are already labled by just having that dog in the store with you. Sad to say, but it's the truth.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> Why is it so unreasonable to require regulation? If we are going to give the disabled priviliges that other people don't have (such as parking closer to the store or taking a dog in a store) why should we not regulate this so people don't take advantage of the law? I would think the disabled would want this. A person like the OP mentioned makes all disabled people look bad.


Privilege? Having compensation for disability is privilege? Is having crutches when your leg is broken a privilege? Is wearing hearing aids a privilege? 

Honestly, I'm appalled anyone would call having a service dog an privilege. It is NOT a privilege. It is a legal right.

Do people think it's all fun and games? That it's cuddly happy thing to be able to bring your dogs to stores? It's not. It's hard work.

The dog has to be perfect all the time. The training is a TON of work. We have to keep them clean every day, brush them every morning before going out. We can't just wake up, get dressed, and go out like you. We have to wake up, get dressed, brush all the hair out of the dog, make sure he smells good, and so on.

Then there are days the dog is sick. If the dog is sick, we are stuck inside with no option of going out. Some people can function better without their guide dog, but others it's like losing a limb.

There's no privilege. It's not a easy ride. We get stopped, people interrupt us while we are in the store to ask questions. Everyone sees, everyone judges. People eye you with jealousy, not knowing what you have to deal with for the "privilege".

No, it's not a privilege. 

Yes, it is unreasonable to ask us, who are disabled, and already by nature not equal to you in any way, to work even harder so YOU can feel like we're not privileged.

The privileged one is YOU. YOU, who have no disability. Most of us would trade our dogs any day of the week to end our disability. Most of us would like to have a dog as pet only. There's no privilege with service dogs.

It is a right. Acceptance is required. You do not understand why because you are not disabled, but accept that at least.



> Thats why I would LOVE just a simple tag that is universal that shows that your dog is indeed a service dog, and that is that. You are already labled by just having that dog in the store with you. Sad to say, but it's the truth.


Yes, it's inconvient for you. Sorry. But I, and the disabled world, will never budge on this issue. The inconvience is far greater for us, and something we deal with every day of our life. Sorry to say, but this is the truth. The ADA will not change in this regard. Hopefully people can learn to accept that.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

RBark said:


> Privilege? Having compensation for disability is privilege? Is having crutches when your leg is broken a privilege? Is wearing hearing aids a privilege?
> 
> Honestly, I'm appalled anyone would call having a service dog an privilege. It is NOT a privilege. It is a legal right.
> 
> ...


Call it a privilige, call it a right, call it an accomodation, call it whatever you want. My point still stands. The disabled want to be allowed to do certain things (like park closer to the store or take a dog into a store) that the non-disabled can't do. Now, for the record, I have no issues with this at all. My issue is with the lack of regulation when it comes to the service dog area.

As it is, I can grab Fido, head down to the store and claim he's a service dog. (Note that I can't park in the handicapped spot when I get there unless I prove that I am indeed handicapped by sporting a placard or a tag, but I need no such proof for my service dog.) Fido walks in and all that is required is that I tell the store employees (if they ask) that he is a service dog and I am disabled. I'm not required to disclose anything further. Fido can tear things off the shelf, jump on other customers, pee on the floor, etc... They have the ability to toss me out for Fido's misbehavior. Fine. I show up at the store the next day. They are required by law to let me back in. It doesn't matter that Fido hasn't bathed since the Clinton administration and that he has all the manners of a street thug. They're not allowed to deny me or my misbehaving dog access. Their only legal option is to wait until the dog misbehaves and then toss me out. How does that make sense?

We have the good sense to regulate who can and can't park in a handicapped stall. Why is it unreasonable to regulate who can and cannot use a service dog and regulate what dogs can and cannot be used as service dogs? You would walk in the store with a dog sporting a leash/collar/vest/whatever that designates it as a service animal. That's it. The store owner wouldn't have any more right to ask you what your disability is than they do today. The only difference is your doctor would've signed paperwork designating that you would benefit from a service dog and a trainer would've tested your dog (perhaps a simple CGC test or a TDI test) to confirm that the dog is a competent service animal. What's wrong with that?


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

RBark said:


> The dog has to be perfect all the time. The training is a TON of work. We have to keep them clean every day, brush them every morning before going out. We can't just wake up, get dressed, and go out like you. We have to wake up, get dressed, brush all the hair out of the dog, make sure he smells good, and so on.
> .


A service dog is expected to be well trained and socialized but not perfect. It is understood (by those in the know anyway) that they are dogs and make mistakes. They are also expected to be reasonably clean so as not to offend from afar. I assure you not everyone with a service dog brushes their dog each time before they go out.

As far as bringing a dog into a store as a privilege for a disabled person? Bad choice of words. 

As stated many times in the past, I spent a long time training dogs for service work. I worked with the public with questions regarding these dogs and their "right to enter" public establishments. People in many cases just do not know and in some cases are just down right rude about it.

I do believe there are people that take advantage of the situation. Not all service dogs are created equal either.

We trained several "hearing assistance dogs" in our program. They are generally trained with specific uses or "needs" in mind. Alerting to doorbell, microwave, crying babies, phone etc... 

Other dogs are trained for general help, turning on and off lights, helping a person to bed, toilet or dress. They might retrieve items like insulin bags from refrigerators or while shopping, items from a shelf.

I think in many cases, peoples frustration is more with the people who cheat the system and as everyone knows, some folks are just jerks. It is something we ALL have to deal with.



> As it is, I can grab Fido, head down to the store and claim he's a service dog. (Note that I can't park in the handicapped spot when I get there unless I prove that I am indeed handicapped by sporting a placard or a tag, but I need no such proof for my service dog.) Fido walks in and all that is required is that I tell the store employees (if they ask) that he is a service dog and I am disabled. I'm not required to disclose anything further. Fido can tear things off the shelf, jump on other customers, pee on the floor, etc... They have the ability to toss me out for Fido's misbehavior. Fine. I show up at the store the next day. They are required by law to let me back in. It doesn't matter that Fido hasn't bathed since the Clinton administration and that he has all the manners of a street thug. They're not allowed to deny me or my misbehaving dog access. Their only legal option is to wait until the dog misbehaves and then toss me out. How does that make sense?


I understand what you are saying. Most (not all) service dog organizations do have identification of some form. A tag, a vest etc... Individuals who train their own dogs can also purchase these for their dogs. Not everyone uses them.


Here is an interesting read for some. http://www.ada.gov/svcanimb.htm There are places to turn in the "not service dogs" being brought in to stores as such. The problem is knowing they are fakes. The problem with people doing that, (faking a service dog) it makes it much harder for people who have legitimate need for dogs.

If you're in any of the listed states, these people may be able to help you find the appropriate local laws
http://www.deltasociety.org/ServiceAccessConsultants.htm


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

Rbark I completely understand what you are saying, and no I do not know what it is like to be disabled so I can not understand what daily life is like. But why then do people need the parking permits, is that not the same as a "badge" on someones shirt saying they are disabled? I do not think a guide dog is a privilage, like you said they are a right and its law...but also being on the other side I do think there should be something in place to stop people from taking advantage (just like the parking permit)l, like I said earlier my husband has dog allergies and so do many other people in this world. A service dog has every right to be in a store or any other place it needs to be...but the other dogs do not (and to tell you the truth I see more non guide dogs than I do guide dogs)...and its too bad there isnt something in place to stop this.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

RBark said:


> Yes, it's inconvient for you. Sorry. But I, and the disabled world, will never budge on this issue. The inconvience is far greater for us, and something we deal with every day of our life. Sorry to say, but this is the truth. The ADA will not change in this regard. Hopefully people can learn to accept that.


I think it's more inconvenient for you then it is for me. Didn't you just say you wish people would be more accepting of the disabled? How do you feel when someone approaches you and ask you if that dog is a service dog? Don't you feel singled out? Doesn't it bother you when you have to defend your own service dog from everyone because there are people out there that abuse the system? 

I feel RUDE when I ask someone that honestly has a disability if their dog is indeed a service dog. yes I DON'T LIKE TO SINGLE THEM OUT! I would love to give them and their dog a smile and ask them if they need help finding anything like I do every other person who walks into the store. That's why I like the hearing dog that comes in because he has a nice blue vest that says "do not pet, I'm working" on it. No question at all that he is a service dog. I couldn't have guessed it by the guy at all. He's a little temperamental himself, but once you get past that he is a sweet guy.

All I am saying is that being so closed minded the disabled community may be doing more harm to themselves in the future. A simple dog tag like what Nubs wears for his CGC that is like bright blue that says "Service dog" would make your life simpler and mine. You no longer would have people walking up to you every time you entered a place asking you "Is that a service dog?".

I know you will not change your mind. Your the almighty debate god of DF (I mean that in a good way!) and I know not to even get into a debate with you, but maybe open your mind a little for the future. It only takes one person to change the world.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

misty073 said:


> A service dog has every right to be in a store or any other place it needs to be...but the other dogs do not (and to tell you the truth I see more non guide dogs than I do guide dogs)...and its too bad there isnt something in place to stop this.


How do you know they are not "service dogs"? Keep in mind that service dogs are trained for many different purposes and guide is only one. Like stated above, they can be used to deliver purse to a cashier, food to a cart, pick up dropped car keys, alert an epileptic of an oncoming seizure. These skills might not be as easy to see if not observed for some time. Seeing a dog walking down an isle with a person, you might not know their skills automatically.

There are also dogs that simply provide "security" to a person with anxiety disorders. They are basically normal pets but are needed in certain circumstances.


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

Inga said:


> How do you know they are not "service dogs"? Keep in mind that service dogs are trained for many different purposes and guide is only one. Like stated above, they can be used to deliver purse to a cashier, food to a cart, pick up dropped car keys, alert an epileptic of an oncoming seizure. These skills might not be as easy to see if not observed for some time. Seeing a dog walking down an isle with a person, you might not know their skills automatically.
> 
> .


Because the majority of dogs I see are not delivering purses they are being carried in them, or pushed in shopping carts, strollers or just carried around it the store.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> --snip--


Handicapped parking is not a valid comparison. Both are two entirely different things as far as the disabled is concerned.

Second, the fact that I keep telling you why it's unreasonable and you keep asking me why it's unreasonable says it all. You do not understand, simple as that. Since you cannot understand what I am saying, you disregard everything I said and persist in your comparison.

Instead, accept that you do not have the experiences necessary to understand, and accept that those who DO have the experience know what they are doing, and that we're not doing this to screw with abled people. We're doing it to help overcome inequality.

Having a handicapped sign, that you can take off while driving and only put up when parking, is not the same as being required to walk around in public with a badge. Having a handicapped sign, that you can choose to not use when you don't want to, is not the same as being forced to use the sign when in stores.

There is no comparison whatsoever.

There are a lot of things I do not understand in this world, and many of it may affect me. But I can accept that we are different. 

I do not care about the guy who brings Fido into the store. He is the vast minority. I DO, however, care about the blind and the deaf and the paralyzed and the many more disabled people who have never seen equality in their lives.

If person A bringing Fido into the store is all the price that has to be paid, then it is a small price to pay. You do not see it, because the disabled are invisible to the world.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Darkmoon said:


> --snip--


Okay I just want to preface again. Darkmoon, I am not criticizing you. I am not saying you are a bad person, or anything like that. The fact that you even care enough about the subject to discuss it openly with me speaks volumes. I have a very powerful belief in this, so I will seem not open to discussion.

That said, you speak of me opening my mind a little to what you believe to be right. It's not a question of that. Because I believe you should open your mind a little to what the disabled believe. It's not just me, the law was made by the majority, so the majority believed in the law being this open ended.

Yes, I do not like being singled out. My belief is that you should not be legally allowed to confront me even with those two questions. I know that will not come to pass, but that said... I would much rather only having you come to me to ask me those questions, than to be subject to the scrunity of the entire store. 

I do not want the world to know about my deafness. Yes, my dog's existence will draw attention, but the how's, why's, where's, who's... that is my life story. And it's not their business. 

I mean really. If there's a regulation that requires them to wear a specific vest... someone will copy it and make it look like it to pass inspection. It may be even worse if they have a vest. Instead of being confronted, they would not get confronted at all.

Anything, and I mean ANYTHING.. can be abused. Vests will continue abuse. If there are vests, then you will have no right to confront them. So if their dog is unruly... and you confront them, the dog was having a bad day... you're in deep crap anyway. So it will not make the problem go away.

So instead of making more and more regulations, making the life of disabled people more and more inconvient... leave it be. Assholes will be assholes. But the good people, the good people who need the dogs... they will be forever grateful.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

RBark said:


> Having a handicapped sign, that you can take off while driving and only put up when parking, is not the same as being required to walk around in public with a badge. Having a handicapped sign, that you can choose to not use when you don't want to, is not the same as being forced to use the sign when in stores.
> 
> Doesn't the fact that you have a dog in a no dog access area already do that? I am not trying to be a smart Alec, you know that. Just having spoken to so many people who use service dogs, that is how they felt. I am interested in your perspective if you are willing to share.
> 
> ...


Again here, I am surprised you feel this way. The group I worked with and another one that trains locally have HUGE issues with the "fakes" as they make it much harder for those who have actual needs. The people who have actual needs are being questioned more because of the ill mannered fakes out there. At least that is their perspective. It is possible that different areas have more fakes as well and it is a bigger concern in those areas.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

I don't know. I guess I see walking around with a dog as a pretty HUGE sign that says "I'm "Disabled"" already. I don't see the point where putting a small tag on the dog to say "Yes I really am a working service dog, not a pretender" is anything worse, more so since that tag would be even more freedom to the handler since they wouldn't have to answer as many questions on the matter. 

I guess when I see someone with a service dog, I am in more awe of the dog to even care that it's owner is disabled in some way. I can't help but smile when I see a true working service dog and can't help but to be thankful that that person found a dog that could help them in the way they need. I know I'm different then most people, I try to not look down on people for any reason at all. 

And R, More and more people are bringing fido into the stores now. For the 2 service dogs I've seen that were truely service dogs, I've had to ask 15 to leave the store with their dog and 3 who I just KNEW were lying about their dogs being a service dog. 

It may have in the past been a smaller issue, but now it's be coming much worse.

Edit to add: I guess as much as it makes you angry about it, it makes me just as angry that people are abusing the system. I just wish there was a better system to help weed out those who abuse the system, and it just seems like you are "It's fine the way it is"


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Inga said:


> Again here, I am surprised you feel this way. The group I worked with and another one that trains locally have HUGE issues with the "fakes" as they make it much harder for those who have actual needs. The people who have actual needs are being questioned more because of the ill mannered fakes out there. At least that is their perspective. It is possible that different areas have more fakes as well and it is a bigger concern in those areas.


I think I answered it basically in my last post. I think I posted it while you were typing so just in case you missed it..



> "Yes, I do not like being singled out. My belief is that you should not be legally allowed to confront me even with those two questions. I know that will not come to pass, but that said... I would much rather only having you come to me to ask me those questions, than to be subject to the scrunity of the entire store.
> 
> I do not want the world to know about my deafness. Yes, my dog's existence will draw attention, but the how's, why's, where's, who's... that is my life story. And it's not their business."


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

RBark said:


> I think I answered it basically in my last post. I think I posted it while you were typing so just in case you missed it..


Again, RBark and the super speedy typing gets to win the race. 

I was just sort of surprised because I talk to people with these dogs all the time (obviously) and most of them complain nonstop about the "fakes" because of how much more difficult it makes things for them. Your view seems so different in that area.


I just wanted to add: Someone stated something to the effect of regulating the "type of dogs used" and to that I have to say. Dogs with the correct working ability are often hard enough to come by. When a dog of a certain breed works, we used them. The list of recipients waiting to get a service dog is always long. Longer then the list of dogs that are able to "cut the mustard" so to speak. Many dogs wash out of programs and become pets because they do not have what it takes to make it as a service dog. This is one of the reasons, training one for your own needs is often difficult.

Certain areas of need "hearing dogs" for example are generally medium sized, high energy dogs. They can be any breed or mix. Seeing eye dogs are often Labrador retrievers, Golden's, GSD's but other breeds are used. Wheelchair assistance dogs are often medium to large dogs of any breed. Seizure alert (usually the hardest to find) is any breed with the natural ability to sense and alert to an oncoming seizure. We would NOT want to try to regulate what type of dog can be used. It is hard enough to find dogs that have the natural ability, health, temperament.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Inga said:


> Again, RBark and the super speedy typing gets to win the race.
> 
> I was just sort of surprised because I talk to people with these dogs all the time (obviously) and most of them complain nonstop about the "fakes" because of how much more difficult it makes things for them. Your view seems so different in that area.


Oh, I'm not saying I like, or want to encourage the fakes. I hate it as much as you do, the fact they are taking advantage of a service for the disabled, a service they NEED, is such a horrible, horrible lack of compassion and empathy. If I knew someone who did that, they would be on my shitlist, and I would do everything in my power to make them face the consequences.

THAT SAID..... I am simply not willing to sacrifice quality of life for the disabled, for the ability to punish the abled.


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

RBark said:


> ...Yes, I do not like being singled out. My belief is that you should not be legally allowed to confront me even with those two questions. I know that will not come to pass, but that said... I would much rather only having you come to me to ask me those questions, than to be subject to the scrunity of the entire store.
> 
> I do not want the world to know about my deafness. Yes, my dog's existence will draw attention, but the how's, why's, where's, who's... that is my life story. And it's not their business.
> 
> ...


Yes true enough, just like there have been the parking permits copied the vests or tags would get copied too. I am one of those people who get annoyed when I see non service dogs in stores, but after this whole thread, I do realize that just because it doesnt seem like a service dog it very well could be...well maybe not the dogs in purses LOL because I am sure someone who has a service dog isnt going to carry it around it a pretty little purse.

And like I said I dont know what its like to be disabled but reading alot of what you go through and what disabled people feel I understand now why it would be a big deal to have a tag or vest on your dog. I have lots of things I dont want some people to know and I sure as heck wouldnt want to have to wear a badge and let the world know.


Edited to add*** wow by the time I post my little posts there are lots more LOL

Oh and I dont think the majority of people I see are faking it...they just seem like its their right to take their dogs where ever they please and cant see why others dont feel the same way and no one ever questions them on it.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

RBark said:


> Oh, I'm not saying I like, or want to encourage the fakes. I hate it as much as you do, the fact they are taking advantage of a service for the disabled, a service they NEED, is such a horrible, horrible lack of compassion and empathy. If I knew someone who did that, they would be on my shitlist, and I would do everything in my power to make them face the consequences.
> 
> THAT SAID..... I am simply not willing to sacrifice quality of life for the disabled, for the ability to punish the abled.



If only we lived in a perfect world, well behaved dogs would be allowed anywhere on leash and service dogs would not stick out, people could be asked to leave a store if the dog was misbehaving and nobody would pick on person from another. Don't worry, I woke up from that dream long long ago. but... If only.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Maybe the direction we need to go is burning the phonies but good. If somebody in granny's bridge club pays a $1000 fine for claiming her ankle biter was a service dog, granny will think twice about doing it. Maybe better yet, take the dog away. That would put the burden where it belongs, on those abusing the system. Those people making life more difficult for those already burdened and costing businesses money shouldn't get off scot free. 

We also need more training for the gate keepers. I loved the response from the kid managing a Subway shop. I asked if he would allow us bring in our foster puppy. ''Should I?'' Most of the people I talk to don't have a clue what the law is. Others don't know their employer's corporate policy which may be more generous than the law. One grocery store employee discovered the lady with the dog she was trying to run out of the store was the county health officer. 

The foster puppies are different. The dog guide school is very emphatic about the puppies' access being a privilege, and we are to do nothing to create bad will toward working dogs.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Labsnothers said:


> Maybe the direction we need to go is burning the phonies but good. If somebody in granny's bridge club pays a $1000 fine for claiming her ankle biter was a service dog, granny will think twice about doing it. Maybe better yet, take the dog away.
> 
> The problem always comes down to proof without insulting someone who actually needs a dog.
> 
> ...


It was the same with our programs. 

Oddly enough, I know of many different local businesses that have welcomed my dogs in for training even though they are NOT service dogs and they were not being secretly passed as such. I was responsible, I asked the management and explained I was just trying to socialize my dog in different venues. Many places welcomed us with open arms as long as I was responsible with my dog.


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

Inga said:


> It was the same with our programs.
> 
> Oddly enough, I know of many different local businesses that have welcomed my dogs in for training even though they are NOT service dogs and they were not being secretly passed as such. I was responsible, I asked the management and explained I was just trying to socialize my dog in different venues. Many places welcomed us with open arms as long as I was responsible with my dog.


I didnt even realize they were different. I thought all the training dogs were allowed (by law) where the service dogs go. Isnt it true that by law you are not allowed to pet the "in training" dogs or is that just service dogs too?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

misty073 said:


> I didnt even realize they were different. I thought all the training dogs were allowed (by law) where the service dogs go. Isnt it true that by law you are not allowed to pet the "in training" dogs or is that just service dogs too?


There's no laws in regards to petting it. But yeah, it's considered extremely disrespectful to pet a service dog. The dog is working and does not need distractions. Some people are more open to letting their dog be petted, but it's best to not assume or ask because some people are just too nice to say no.

In-Training dogs have no legal rights. They are considered pets. But the same thing applies, it's considered disrespectful to pet a in-training dog. Sometimes they might be open to it for the sake of socialization, but usually the socializing is done outside the store. When they go in the store, they want them to get habituated to the new surroundings, but (varies person by person) usually they don't want the dog to get the idea that stores are "playtime".

So while some people may be OK with their dog being petted, others may not be OK with it... it's simply best to ignore them.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

misty073 said:


> I didnt even realize they were different. I thought all the training dogs were allowed (by law) where the service dogs go. Isnt it true that by law you are not allowed to pet the "in training" dogs or is that just service dogs too?


There is no law, but I would support one if there was. I see full grown adults just kneeling down and grabbing service dogs, even with the giant orange vests that say "WORKING DOG. PLEASE DO NOT PET." So disrespectful. That dog isn't around for other peoples amusement. At my last job a man in a wheel chair had a FCR service dog and I must have walked him to find things a thousand times and while it was extremely temping, I never once even asked to pet his dog, even when it was two inches away from me.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

I look at it this way. We don't live in a perfect world. We just don't. Why do we all have to take off our shoes when we get on the airplane? Because some idiot decided to try to set off a bomb in his shoe. He was one guy out of millions who travel every year, but he ruined it for everyone. Why do we have regulations on who can use a handicapped spot? Because if we didn't there are tons of idiots who take advantage of it who are not handicapped.

This is the problem with the current laws on service dogs. There are no regulations. I can take my dog who has his CGC and TDI and call that dog a therapy dog. I can also take some mutt I just picked up off the street yesterday and call that dog a therapy dog too. There's no regulation and the law leaves tons and tons of room for abuse. I don't know how you don't see the gaping holes for abuse in the current structure of the law.

I know. I don't understand because I'm not disabled. Therefore I'm not entitled to an opinion or my opinion isn't valid. That's such a BS argument. I'm not a child therefore I should have no say on laws governing children. I'm not a woman so I should have no say on laws governing women. I don't have a cat so my opinion on laws about cats is not valid. I'm not a food preparer so my opinion on food preparation doesn't matter either. It's a ridiculous argument. 

Should you be able to bring any dog you want into a public place where dogs are not normally allowed without being questioned or challenged? Absolutely. Should you have to prove that you are disabled to someone first? Absolutely not. But the world isn't perfect. We have to take off our shoes because someone abused a loophole. By the same token we need some regulation on service dogs because people are abusing the system.

As I said before, I would support a simple system where the disabled person got a letter from the doctor saying they would benefit in some way from a service dog. Simple enough. People get such letters all the time to get handicap placards. Then your potential service dog would need to pass an already existing test like the CGC or the TDI to prove that the dog can indeed function as a service animal. That's it. I would think most seeing eye dogs or hearing dogs would be able to pass a test like that very easily. You even have the option of training the dog yourself. I would be in favor of waiving the fee for such a test in these cases. Upon passing, the dog would be given a collar or a leash or a vest or whatever designating the dog as a service dog.

Let's be honest, if you're walking through Wal-mart with a dog on a leash, I already know you're disabled. The fact that you have a dog where dogs aren't allowed and no one is challenging you would indicate that to me. What's the difference if the dog is wearing a special collar or leash or vest? You would walk in, no one would ask you about your handicap and you would go about your business just like anyone else would. How is that such an awful idea? I'm sorry, but we don't live in a perfect world.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> He was one guy out of millions who travel every year, but he ruined it for everyone.


You're not seriously comparing someone bringing a dog to the store to a TERRORIST attack?



> This is the problem with the current laws on service dogs. There are no regulations.


Wrong. There ARE regulations. You just don't like them.



> How is that such an awful idea? I'm sorry, but we don't live in a perfect world.


Exactly!!! We don't live in a perfect world. Deal with it. This is what the disabled community has decided. You have no say in the matter.

I don't understand why someone who is deathly afraid of law, who hates over-regulation, who fears the IRS... would support more regulation for the disabled.

Oh wait. No I can. It only helps YOU for there to be more regulation. So it's OK. Since it does not hurt YOU, you do not want to understand. You don't care that the disabled are going to be hurt by over-regulating this. You only care that it will help you.

Sorry, not gonna happen. You will never have a say in this. Yeah, in a perfect world, you would have a voice in this matter. But it's not, so too bad!



> Let's be honest, if you're walking through Wal-mart with a dog on a leash, I already know you're disabled. The fact that you have a dog where dogs aren't allowed and no one is challenging you would indicate that to me. What's the difference if the dog is wearing a special collar or leash or vest? You would walk in, no one would ask you about your handicap and you would go about your business just like anyone else would.


This is why you will never understand. 

Fortunately though, just like I have no say in many things in this world because I am disabled, you will never have a say in this matter. The ADA belongs to us, not you.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I'm with Rbark. Yes, we get fakers (and I have unabashedly turned some of them in), but I do prefer the laws as they are now. I don't need my ability to go places any more infringed upon.

Many states do seem to require the dog be identified in some way (via vest/harness), but nothing else.

People lament about the inconvenience to THEM because of our dogs in the store....you've got to be kidding me! Strauss gives me a *great deal more* independence than I have had in QUITE a long time, but as Rbark said: It's hard work.

Strauss and I have been walking through Wal-Mart shopping and we have had people run away screaming like idiots (full grown adults) because "Oh my gawd, lookit that big dog! Daaaaamn he's huge! Is he gonna bite!?"

Or you get the kids that see him and they shriek and cry and run to their parents and then scream MORE because OMG my dog walked past them! My dog's job is NOT easy and he has a LOT of responsibility on his shoulders. He ignores the screamers and the crying children, he looks to me for direction when some idiotic adult runs up to him and starts petting without asking, he is bumped, kicked, stepped on, and pushed, and he takes everything in stride.

He continues his work because it is what he has been taught to do, and I have worked *extremely* hard to get him to behave as well as he does and to tolerate all that he must.

Strauss wears a green vest with a harness that says "Service Dog" on it. I didn't waste the money on the "Do Not Pet" patch because people always disregard it anyway.

BTW people, you know what is (IMO) even WORSE than petting the service dog? TALKING TO IT! Good lord, just because you know it's not ok to pet the dog does NOT automatically mean it is ok to speak to the dog! Should these dogs be absolutely rock steady? Of course.

But they're sentient beings, and if you baby talk to the dog long enough, it WILL get up...and the second thing I do after I correct my dog (because he is wrong) is severely chastize the person that got him to break in the first place!

And (speaking in general terms now) don't you DARE get offended when I get upset that you distracted my dog while working!

If Strauss and I are lounging in Barnes & Noble or we're strolling through the Wal-Mart or the Mall, people are welcome to say hello to him for a moment, because I am sitting and stable and he is on a break, but the MOMENT I tell my dog "Up!" we're back to work, and he's done with whoever he has socialized with.

Strauss has been a source of learning for many people, because quite a few don't know that there are service dogs other than guides (the number of times people have assumed I'm blind or I'm just training him is amazing).

I have some very astute parents that hear their kids going "Puppy! Puppy!" and they tell their child, "No no honey, that's a special dog. He's working and we can't bother him."

And then I have the conversely ridculously STUPID adults that start petting my dog and talking to him and then get all indignant when I tell them "Please don't do that, he's working. You shouldn't pet him."

And a last personal "Favorite" of mine...the security guard that follows you around the mall for 15 minutes trying to get up the nerve to ask if your dog is a service dog (for the person with the anxiety disorder, SO NOT COOL!). 

You can legally do two things:
Ask me if my dog is a service dog
Ask me what his task/function is

You may NOT ask me what my disability is.

I am relatively open about my own disability, particularly when I'm having a decent walking day, and my anxiety levels are in the middle so Strauss is in a closer proximity to me (I use the back handle on his vest instead of the long handle). But I always explain to people that not everybody is this way and many find it rude to ask at all.

I think we (the disabled K9 handlers) all appreciate kind comments about our dogs (the most common are "What a beautiful dog!" and "I wish mine behaved that well!"), but we do not appreciate being bothered constantly by people asking us if they can pet our *working dogs*.

We are already singled out just by having a dog with us in harness/vest, we do not need ID cards. To me that is going back to the days of segregation, and I wil lnot have that!

BTW Hulk, I HAVE had my access rights challenged....three times...by the SAME PERSON...IN A WEEK!

I had a talk with management about it because it was absolutely ludicrous. Yes, I have a dog with me, yes, he's large...he kinda has to be to do his job. He wears a green vest that CLEARLY STATES "Service dog" on it.

I am not going to carry around a letter from my doctor for my entire life to prove that I'm disabled! All of these things that you want changed in the law have to do with the inconvenience the disabled community puts on YOU. I have a right to be out and be (more) independent. To be honest, if it weren't for Strauss I would be spending a LOT more time being shut in.

I don't take him out for craps and giggles.

I can also admit that sometimes it IS just nice having Strauss with me, but it's nice because if I have a panic attack, I have a dog that can alert somebody to help me, or help me find the exit/my car so I can calm down and not be surrounded. My dog provides me with a vital service, and I shouldn't be grilled every time we walk in a store.

It is nobody's business what my disability is but my own unless I choose to disclose it.

BTW, it's not hard these days to find an unscrupulous doctor that will "prescribe" a service dog for anybody.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

RBark said:


> Wrong. There ARE regulations. You just don't like them.


Perhaps I simply don't understand them. Educate me please. What are the regulations regulating what are and aren't considered service animals? What are these definitions?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> Perhaps I simply don't understand them. Educate me please. What are the regulations regulating what are and aren't considered service animals? What are these definitions?


The dog is required to know two abilities that alleviate the disability of it's owner. (Most service dogs have a dozen more).

Unruly dogs can be asked to leave. Be aware though, more is required than "the dog is sniffing too much!"

You are allowed to ask two questions. Is the dog a service dog? Are you disabled? (Not WHAT your disability is).

If a person is caught impersonating a service dog, the fine is very heavy, including jail time. Proof requires that the owner display two acts of alleviating disability.

Consider for a minute you start requiring vests and ID's.

It's not like driver licenses. Everyone has a driver's license. Not everyone can duplicate a fake easily. But everyone knows what a ID looks like.

Not everyone will know what a Service dog ID will look like. And it's so rare that a lot of people will never see one. As such, someone could easily fake a vest and ID.

All you will do is make it slightly more work, that's all. People will still break the law.










This oh-so-professional looking service dog vest cost me a whopping 12 bucks.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

This is an honest question, RBark - how would you want impersonators to be caught if you neither support store management asking those two questions nor dogs being mandated to wear something specific?

I know next to nothing about this so I ask that nobody jumps down my throat.. no snarkiness please.. just trying to educate myself here..


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Here's strauss's vest....cost me $60 on sale (but it's super durable and has handle clips)









Also, I'm not RBark, but when other service dog teams are "sharing" a store, sometimes they gravitate to each other and start talking. Those that are imposters are just don't plain understand that the dog they're trying to train for service work just won't qualify "out" themselves pretty quickly


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Xeph said:


> We are already singled out just by having a dog with us in harness/vest, we do not need ID cards. To me that is going back to the days of segregation, and I wil lnot have that!


I never said ID card. I said a DOG TAG on your dog that could identify him/her as a service dog. No patches, no flashing lights that say "*LOOK AT ME I'M DISABLED!!!!!!!!!! *" I'm sorry, you are WALKING AROUND WITH A DOG in places where dogs are NOT allowed which means you have a service dog or your an idiot who is taking advantage of a law in which is way to vague. I don't think a small dog tag will point you out more then that will. 

If you don't need a dog, then there isn't a tag for you to worry about. If you need a service dog, then your dog has one extra tag on their collar that can be seen so stores leave you alone.


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

RBark said:


> There's no laws in regards to petting it. But yeah, it's considered extremely disrespectful to pet a service dog. The dog is working and does not need distractions. Some people are more open to letting their dog be petted, but it's best to not assume or ask because some people are just too nice to say no.
> 
> In-Training dogs have no legal rights. They are considered pets. But the same thing applies, it's considered disrespectful to pet a in-training dog. Sometimes they might be open to it for the sake of socialization, but usually the socializing is done outside the store. When they go in the store, they want them to get habituated to the new surroundings, but (varies person by person) usually they don't want the dog to get the idea that stores are "playtime".
> 
> So while some people may be OK with their dog being petted, others may not be OK with it... it's simply best to ignore them.


See I was told and always under the impression that it was law that you couldnt touch/talk to a service dog.

I tried to google it but found nothing, I did however see that things are different here. A service dog must be certified by the government.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

MissMutt said:


> This is an honest question, RBark - how would you want impersonators to be caught if you neither support store management asking those two questions nor dogs being mandated to wear something specific?
> 
> I know next to nothing about this so I ask that nobody jumps down my throat.. no snarkiness please.. just trying to educate myself here..


What Xeph said. Other service dog people are the best way to find fakers. Most people who do not have disabilities or service dogs don't have the experience required to make the judgment.



> If you don't need a dog, then there isn't a tag for you to worry about. If you need a service dog, then your dog has one extra tag on their collar that can be seen so stores leave you alone.


If it's just a dog tag, why even have one? That's so easy to fake that it'd be redundant.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

I asked my doctor if he'd consider talking about me training a dog to be a service dog for me, because I know many ways I would benefit from it, and have in the past with a previous dog, and he flat out refused to even discuss it. because I don't have health insurance, I'm not that flush with options on who to turn to for help with that. If someone's going to require me to get a letter or a tag, that's going to cost a lot of money I don't have, just so I can do things I can already do now?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

misty073 said:


> See I was told and always under the impression that it was law that you couldnt touch/talk to a service dog.
> 
> I tried to google it but found nothing, I did however see that things are different here. A service dog must be certified by the government.


Certified how?

In my city you have to certify the service dog when you register the dog (they waive fees) but it's not a test. You just tell them it's a service dog and they waive it.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I don't think a small dog tag will point you out more then that will.


Why doesn't my dog *in harness* with a *vest* that *says service dog* on it not suitable?


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

jesirose said:


> I asked my doctor if he'd consider talking about me training a dog to be a service dog for me, because I know many ways I would benefit from it, and have in the past with a previous dog, and he flat out refused to even discuss it. because I don't have health insurance, I'm not that flush with options on who to turn to for help with that. If someone's going to require me to get a letter or a tag, that's going to cost a lot of money I don't have, just so I can do things I can already do now?


Which is why I wouldn't propose any fees. You get a letter from your doctor saying that you would benefit from a service dog. Your dog gets a CGC or TDI or some similar certification (the fee for which would be waived). You could pick the dog yourself and train the dog yourself if you wished.

No, I don't understand what the difference is between walking around with a dog in a store (which basically screams that the person has a disability of some sort) and walking around with a dog in the store who happens to be wearing a vest. Please explain to me what the difference is. Don't just say, "you don't understand," and leave it at that.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

RBark said:


> If it's just a dog tag, why even have one? That's so easy to fake that it'd be redundant.


If it was a certain color in a certain shape it would be harder to copy. If it was a system I was working on, ever tag would have a small number on it (like CGC has, but on the certificates not the tag) so if an issue arises that tag can be authenticated. 

We are all already followed my our SS#, Drivers license, and many other things before you jump out and say anything about it. Simply it would just list breed of dog and owner of the dog and doctor/trainer/school/ect where the tag was handed out. 

Besides if someone goes as far as to copy that tag, and their dog acts up, there is something legally there that can be prosecuted. Right now, there is nothing to get people on if they do fake a service dog.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> you are WALKING AROUND WITH A DOG in places where dogs are NOT allowed which means you have a service dog or your an idiot who is taking advantage of a law in which is way to vague


Too vague for who? The disabled, or the abled? The disabled know about the loopholes (we really, REALLY do), but we're willing to deal with the fakers (and out them as necessary) in order to keep things fair and even for us that are NOT fakers.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

hulkamaniac said:


> Which is why I wouldn't propose any fees. You get a letter from your doctor saying that you would benefit from a service dog. Your dog gets a CGC or TDI or some similar certification (the fee for which would be waived). You could pick the dog yourself and train the dog yourself if you wished.
> 
> No, I don't understand what the difference is between walking around with a dog in a store (which basically screams that the person has a disability of some sort) and walking around with a dog in the store who happens to be wearing a vest. Please explain to me what the difference is. Don't just say, "you don't understand," and leave it at that.


Did you miss the point about the doctor being what costs the money?

I'm not that opposed to vests or tags, but it's just more differences. It's more work on the part of someone who already has to do more work just to get by.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Why doesn't my dog *in harness* with a *vest* that *says service dog* on it not suitable?


I think she's referring to my opinion that the dogs should not be required to have any form of ID as a service dog on it.

In current law, dogs do not need to wear a vest or have a special leash. I like it that way. Ironically, the only real reason I have a vest for Priscilla is because it makes her more approachable than when she doesn't have vest on. You'd think it should be the opposite, but it's not.

So during her in-training phase, she had the vest on for socializing purposes. Had I finished her and was content with her as a service dog (probably around age 3-4) I probably would not have had any vest or special leash on it. IMO that is the way it should be.

It is, of course, your choice to put a vest on them. But that's what's important. The disabled have a choice whether to display it or not.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Why doesn't my dog *in harness* with a *vest* that *says service dog* on it not suitable?


Personally because anyone can buy one and put it on their dog. Right now, I wouldn't bother you at all, just smile and greet you like any other person that walked by. Maybe tell you that your GSD is one great looking dog. It's the people who come in with their dogs in nothing to stand out from an everyday pet that concerns me. 

Besides that makes you stand out. I thought the whole issue was not standing out.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Darkmoon said:


> If it was a certain color in a certain shape it would be harder to copy. If it was a system I was working on, ever tag would have a small number on it (like CGC has, but on the certificates not the tag) so if an issue arises that tag can be authenticated.
> 
> We are all already followed my our SS#, Drivers license, and many other things before you jump out and say anything about it. Simply it would just list breed of dog and owner of the dog and doctor/trainer/school/ect where the tag was handed out.
> 
> Besides if someone goes as far as to copy that tag, and their dog acts up, there is something legally there that can be prosecuted. Right now, there is nothing to get people on if they do fake a service dog.


That's not really the point. From a distance, would you really be able to see the difference unless you got up close and personal with the dog? Just print a somewhat similar color, fake numbers on it, presto! Public access to 99% of areas with nobody questioning it at all, except the rare, rare person like you who actually knows dogs and cares.


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

RBark said:


> I think she's referring to my opinion that the dogs should not be required to have any form of ID as a service dog on it.
> 
> .


And in further reading it appears that a service dog in BC must be identified as a service dog.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> It is, of course, your choice to put a vest on them.


I vest and harness my dog because my disability 'requires' it (without the harness I'd be putting more strain on my dog).



> We are all already followed my our SS#, Drivers license, and many other things before you jump out and say anything about it.


Yes, but ONLY the disabled would be "Tracked" with these tags. That is not fair. I don't want somebody following my every move just so I can get through life without having to depend on my husband all the time.

I should to be able to go to the freaking grocery store with my partner and shop uninhibited just like everybody else!



> Personally because anyone can buy one and put it on their dog.


You can do that with any tag....most of the things you buy for an SD are online for convenience of everybody.

The place where I bought Strauss's vest DOES state that pretending a pet dog is an SD is fraud and is punishable by law. That is all they can do. People do have to be honest.

And yeah, I KNOW people can see my dog (he's a freaking mammoth), but people bother me LESS when I am out shopping with Strauss than when I am alone and stumbling all over the place. THAT is embarrassing. I do not need people coming up to me to try and help because my legs buckled and I missed my cart. When I fall, I have Strauss to help me get back up, and nobody bothers me because they see my dog working. That is what I want.

I fell in the mall the other day (anxiety attack), and only ONE person came over to try and help me. I politely told her "No thank you, that's what he is for," as I gestured to Strauss. "I appreciate your concern, but I'm alright." I am NOT upset when people don't rush to my aid if I have Moose. That is his job and he does it well.

If I am having more trouble than usual, I do call for help, but I put Strauss in a down so he knows he is not to interfere.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

RBark said:


> That's not really the point. From a distance, would you really be able to see the difference unless you got up close and personal with the dog? Just print a somewhat similar color, fake numbers on it, presto! Public access to 99% of areas with nobody questioning it at all, except the rare, rare person like you who actually knows dogs and cares.


They are already doing that. At least this way, if busted there is a LEGAL way of dealing with it, where right now there really isn't. It would also prevent a lot of the normal Joe's from doing what they are already doing. If they are going to go as far as to forge a tag, they are already lying about their dog being a service dog. When they get caught though, there will be a way to deal with it.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> No, I don't understand what the difference is between walking around with a dog in a store (which basically screams that the person has a disability of some sort) and walking around with a dog in the store who happens to be wearing a vest. Please explain to me what the difference is. Don't just say, "you don't understand," and leave it at that.


It's simple. I see the difference. Walking around the store people may know I'm disabled. They will not know what my disability is. Heck, they may even think that I'm breaking rules being there.

You do not make that distinction. You don't make the distinction because it doesn't matter to you, and you don't have the life experience to understand why it matters.

But to disabled people... it matters. It's an emotional thing. We hate standing out, we hate even more flaunting our disability to the world. Flaunting to the world that it's a service dog. Is it logical? In a way, yes. Basic Psychology and Psychologists/Sociologists would tell you the difference is as huge as day and night.

Overly rational people may not see a distinction. But that is because you are not the one who HAS to see the distinction.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Darkmoon said:


> They are already doing that. At least this way, if busted there is a LEGAL way of dealing with it, where right now there really isn't. It would also prevent a lot of the normal Joe's from doing what they are already doing. If they are going to go as far as to forge a tag, they are already lying about their dog being a service dog. When they get caught though, there will be a way to deal with it.


Yes they are already doing that. And it will continue when there's a tag. The only people who will be hurt are the disabled. The liars are still going to get away with it 99% of the time. There will still only be 1% punished. There won't be more legal recourse. Most of them will just get slapped on the hand because it's not fair. 

It also opens us up to being bullied. You may be nice about checking if the dog's a service dog. Someone else will take the ID as a license to push the disabled around for the sake of "verifying" the dog is a service dog. Sorry but, just no. It won't happen.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

What Rbark says about blending in is very true. I feel LESS obvious because I have help. The majority of people ignore/avoid the dog and handler aside from a passing comment of pleasantry and I can go about my shopping.

Like I said in an above post, I am bothered CONSTANTLY with "Oh are you ok!" if I don't have Strauss to aid in my balancing.



> It also opens us up to being bullied. You may be nice about checking if the dog's a service dog. Someone else will take the ID as a license to push the disabled around for the sake of "verifying" the dog is a service dog. Sorry but, just no. It won't happen.


In addition to this, some people have PSDs (Psychiatrict Service Dogs) and they have severe anxiety disorders, PTSD, etc...it is the job of their dog to *keep people away*! The dog is not supposed to let people terribly near with the exception of extenuating circumstances, and you are encroaching upon the handler if you need to check for a tag.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

RBark said:


> It's simple. I see the difference. Walking around the store people may know I'm disabled. They will not know what my disability is. Heck, they may even think that I'm breaking rules being there.


How will I know what your disability is if your dog is wearing a vest? I don't. I just see a sign that says the dog is a service dog. How is this any different from seeing you with a dog in a store and thus knowing you are disabled but not knowing what the disability is. What's the difference?



> You do not make that distinction. You don't make the distinction because it doesn't matter to you, and you don't have the life experience to understand why it matters.
> 
> But to disabled people... it matters. It's an emotional thing. We hate standing out, we hate even more flaunting our disability to the world. Flaunting to the world that it's a service dog. Is it logical? In a way, yes. Basic Psychology and Psychologists/Sociologists would tell you the difference is as huge as day and night.
> 
> Overly rational people may not see a distinction. But that is because you are not the one who HAS to see the distinction.


Again, please point out the distinction to me.

Person 1 has a leashed dog with no identification the dog at all. I can tell simply by the fact that the person has a dog in a place where dogs aren't allowed that the person is disabled. I don't know what the disability is, but I know that the person is disabled.

Person 2 has a leashed dog that has a tag on it's collar designating it as a service dog. I can tell by the fact that the person has a dog in a place dogs aren't allowed that the person is disabled. I know from seeing the tag that this dog is a properly trained service dog. I have no idea what the person's disability is. In neither case is it my business either.

Where is the distinction? I truly and honestly want to know. If I can see the distinction than maybe I can at least see your point.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Person 1 has a leashed dog with no identification the dog at all. I can tell simply by the fact that the person has a dog in a place where dogs aren't allowed that the person is disabled. I don't know what the disability is, but I know that the person is disabled.


Part of it hulk, is assumptions and boldness. People are LESS likely to inquire about the working status of a naked dog (can you believe that?). Vests actually make the dogs MORE approachable (especially neutral colors like green and blue).

Colors such as red, yellow, black and neon orange serve as natural "warning" colors. They'll still get approached more often than a naked dog, but less than dogs wearing "Welcome" colors (Green, Blue, Pink, Purple).

Some people also just DON'T need vests for the tasks their dog performs.

Strauss currently has a great many tasks....but since my situation has changed, his working replacement will have even more responsibility. But the primary task of my dogs (mobility) requires a harness. A hearing dog does not really need one. They do not need to carry things or pick things up, but alert to many different sounds to keep their person safe.

A seizure alert dog may have a "pouch" collar (these collars have an extra tab to store a bottle of medication on/in it) but nothing else is necessary. Understand?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Service dogs forced to wear a vest/have ID.

Normal dogs don't wear a vest.

Odd to see a person with a vested dog.

Not odd to see a person with a dog that doesnt have a vest.

Yes, you can figure it out by the dog being in a store.

The disabled person is the one who feels different. Forced to wear a vest means she's different from everyone. Not forced to wear a vest means she's the same.

It's not about how you view it. It's about how the disabled person views it.

Yes, you might find it to be a silly distinction.

It's not so silly when your entire world revolves around trying to be "normal". These things which are trivial to you, mean a lot to many people who feel like the world defines them by their disability.

To have a dog without a vest is to be a normal person. I can understand if you don't understand why that's a important distinction. I can understand why abled people think it's a silly and trivial distinction.

But it's not.

There are people like Xeph who feel more at ease when her dog is tagged.

There are people like me who feel more at ease when the dog is not tagged.

When I walked into a store or in public with a vest on Priscilla, I felt like everyone's eyes were on me. Like I stood out, like I was unusual. 

Without the vest on, I felt normal. Yes I still stand out to people but it's not about them. It's about us.



> Part of it hulk, is assumptions and boldness. People are LESS likely to inquire about the working status of a naked dog (can you believe that?). Vests actually make the dogs MORE approachable (especially neutral colors like green and blue).
> 
> Colors such as red, yellow, black and neon orange serve as natural "warning" colors. They'll still get approached more often than a naked dog, but less than dogs wearing "Welcome" colors (Green, Blue, Pink, Purple).


This is true too. When Priscilla had her vest on, I was approached 100 times more than when she didn't have the vest on. When she didn't have her vest on, people kept distance from her because they did not know what she was. Is she a working dog? Is she friendly? Is she approachable? They don't know. They don't risk it.

That helps me. I don't want people to approach me any more than any other person would get approached.

I put a vest on her... EVERY OTHER PERSON annoys me. It drives me NUTS. I do not want to be approached.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

I'm not necessarily advocating a vest, just some sort of ID. A special leash, a special collar, something. Tthis would keep store owners and employees from asking those two questions like RBark would like. It would also provide a clear means of identifying who is a faker and who isn't. 

I would say that most legit service dogs would be able to pass the CGC or the TDI right now. A letter from a doctor is easy enough to obtain.

Personally, I would support a law making it a crime punishable by a fine for approaching a service dog at work.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> There are people like Xeph who feel more at ease when her dog is tagged.
> 
> There are people like me who feel more at ease when the dog is not tagged.


Yup  And this is just the difference between two people. And I am positive that this difference is largely because of our different disabilities!

I take great pride in my training of Strauss just as I know RBark did of Priscilla. The difference is I NEED to be comfortable (i.e. trust my dog) with being approached in the event that I need more help than Strauss can provide.

Strauss's vest tells people that he is well mannered and is unlikely to harm you if I call you over for assistance. It tells people that he IS approachable, and I NEED him to be approachable.

RBark does not need his service dog to be approachable and so he'd prefer to do what he can to make his dog uninteresting/taboo. Please note that when I say RBark doesn't need his SD to be approachable I DO NOT mean his dog is unfriendly..I mean that it is not a necessity that she actually *attract* people to help him. If he needs help he can ask for it, whereas I cannot always do that on my own.



> A letter from a doctor is easy enough to obtain.


But why should I have to carry a letter around all the time? I'm not a criminal. And what happens if I misplace or forget my letter? I never thought I'd say something like this but, life is not a field trip! I should not need a ticket to live!


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> I'm not necessarily advocating a vest, just some sort of ID. A special leash, a special collar, something. Tthis would keep store owners and employees from asking those two questions like RBark would like. It would also provide a clear means of identifying who is a faker and who isn't.


It should be clear as day if a dog is CGC worthy or not. Now, some dogs like anything have bad days. My hearing aids malfunction. Wheelchairs squeak. Crutches break. The reason I add all that is, the fact a dog has bad days doesn't make it inferior to all other avenues of disability aid.

I mean, honestly. If a dog is well behaved, not interacting with people, not barking at people, not peeing on everything, well groomed, etc. Does it really matter THAT much? Yes, still bad. But even with a ID system, you would not catch these guys. So the law would not be regulated for them.

The issue is more the idiots that have unruly dogs. A dog that is barking constantly (and I don't mean alert barking when it's person is in danger), jumping on people, grabbing stuff, etc... You are already legally allowed to ask them to remove themselves from your premises. If, in the future, the person comes back.. You can not bar entry, but if the dog acts up again, you can remove them again. Most major stores have every inch of the store video taped, and can back up in case of legal action.

It should say something that I believe those two questions are less harmful than ID's. With those 2 questions, I only have to deal with one person in a store. With ID's, I deal with everyone.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

I think the issue is not inhibiting disabled people more, while still not letting jerks take advantage of the law. RBark, Xeph, do you feel that the number of people taking advantage of the law is nontrivial? If so, what do you feel is an appropriate measure to keep these people from doing so?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Aye...Strauss has had his bad days (too much sniffing, a little scattered in the brain pan), but overall his work is fantastic and he improves my quality of life.

People can see Strauss is trained because I use a lot of verbal commands. My dog "Leads" me to a degree (he forges ahead to help me keep me upright), but if I tell him to "get out" and he's on my left, that means he needs to turn left. If I tell him to "get out" and he's on my right side, he needs to turn right.

Sometimes we just practice the right side because 98% of the time Strauss is out in front and to my left (partially because I'm left handed) and I don't want him to forget, but overall "get out" moves away from me.

When I tell him to "come in" that means we're turning right.

Heck, just to make it easier, Strauss's directionals:
Up - Stand straight up (this brings his head far forward and my hand lands directly on his harness bar)
Get out - Go left/move over
Come in - Come right
Come around - Come back to my left side (usually done after I have put him in a down stay)
Get in - Step next to me
Zurich - Get back
Stand - Brace yourself
Wait - Stop and wait please
Walk on - Continue moving forward
Walk up - Take one or two steps forward
Go on - Push ahead with hard pull/quick trot
Go follow - Follow the person in front of you

His biggest tasks are to "Go on" and "Stand", otherwise those are mostly directionals, though "Go follow" is very important in places that are unfamiliar to me.



> RBark, Xeph, do you feel that the number of people taking advantage of the law is nontrivial? If so, what do you feel is an appropriate measure to keep these people from doing so?


I wouldn't say nontrivial...it is something that largely depends on your area of residence. I know that Strauss and I are by no means the only dog handler team in the area...but we are frequently the only pair in any given store. It is quite rare for me to run into any others, and so I don't meet many fakers (thus far I will admit I've only met two...and one wasn't malicious about it, just ignorant about what a service dog really is).

For ME I think the measures are appropriate as they are. The PROBLEM is that the interpretation of the laws are sketchy and so business owners/general employees are not asking all the questions they are legally allowed to ask because they're afraid of getting in trouble.

If somebody asks me how my dog mitigates my disability, that is still within the confines of the law. All I have to tell them is that "My dog aids me in walking upright as I have a balance problem and am apt to fall." Many people don't have an answer for this question.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

RaeganW said:


> I think the issue is not inhibiting disabled people more, while still not letting jerks take advantage of the law. RBark, Xeph, do you feel that the number of people taking advantage of the law is nontrivial? If so, what do you feel is an appropriate measure to keep these people from doing so?


I mentioned it earlier in the thread.

There is no sense in requiring the disabled to make sacrifices to punish the abled.

If you want to come up with a way that does not require ANY... and I do mean ANY, not even what someone might think is a tiny one... ANY... sacrifice on the part of the disabled... then I will probably support it.

I do believe that the numbers of fakers, while infurating, is trivial compared to the benefit it gives the disabled. Yeah, a bunch of asshole fakers have their giggles at the store 20 minutes a day once a week.

For me, it's not 20 minutes a day. It's 1440 minutes a day.


----------



## k9waggingtails (May 21, 2007)

Ok guys - I just found this thread so I'm going to be commenting on posts made throughout all 5 pages. Please bear with me! 



> ipreferpi said: He is almost a year old, and is still having issues with basic potty training. He'll frequently eliminate in the store, which would be no big deal, except she's calling him a service dog, and bringing him into stores and restaurants. He also barks, jumps up, and nips when excited.


Whew! Obviously that dog should not be out in public. I'm glad to hear that you've told the owner that, and are not attempting to work with this dog to make him a SD.




> Labsnothers said: Those people dragging glorified pets into public places are the enemy of those with dogs trained to assist them. Self training is legal. However, a school with team of professionals can produce much better dogs. If you are impaired, a trained dog from a school is the best option


While many owner-trained dogs aren't up to snuff, I know of several owner-trained dogs who behave impeccably. Are most people up to owner-training? Nope - you need to be dog savvy, willing to seek help if needed, and capable of washing out a dog who isn't suited for the work. Some people have to owner-train because they can't find a program that trains dogs for their specific disability. For example, most programs won't train a dog for an autistic adult.




> Inga said: people with anxiety issues can have service dogs who's main function is to offer comfort to their owner. The dog might not be trained to perform any other duties.


Those dogs are emotional support dogs, not service dogs, and their handlers may not bring them into public accommodations where pet dogs are disallowed. Dogs must be individually trained to do work or perform tasks - comfort does not count.

Sally Conway, with the US DOJ, has said, "Generally speaking, if we're talking about therapy, comfort, emotional support animals -- and I think those typically are used interchangeably. Those are not going to be service animals under the ADA because they haven't been trained to -- remember that three-part -- that definition, they haven't been trained to do work or perform a task for the benefit of an individual with a disability. Typically, comfort, emotional support animals by their very presence certainly performs a valuable service, but it's an innate ability. It's their mere presence. It doesn't reach the level of having been trained to do work or perform tasks."




> Labsnothers said: There are psychological support dogs, but I couldn't findmy link to more info on them. They don't have the full rights of a service dog.


I think you're referring to psychiatric service dogs (PSDs). Handlers of PSDs have the same rights as handlers of other types of service dogs. However, some people confuse PSDs (task trained, public access trained) with emotional support animals (not task or public access trained).




> hulkamaniac said: Fido can tear things off the shelf, jump on other customers, pee on the floor, etc... They have the ability to toss me out for Fido's misbehavior. Fine. I show up at the store the next day. They are required by law to let me back in. It doesn't matter that Fido hasn't bathed since the Clinton administration and that he has all the manners of a street thug. They're not allowed to deny me or my misbehaving dog access


Stores do not have to allow access to a handler with a service dog that has a history of misbehaving in public (urinating, barking repeatedly, tearing up items, jumping on people, etc).




> hulkamaniac said: The only difference is your doctor would've signed paperwork designating that you would benefit from a service dog and a trainer would've tested your dog (perhaps a simple CGC test or a TDI test) to confirm that the dog is a competent service animal


Neither the CGC nor the TDI tests are strenuous enough to determine whether a dog is public access ready or not, for what it's worth.




> RBark said: In-Training dogs have no legal rights. They are considered pets. But the same thing applies, it's considered disrespectful to pet a in-training dog


Service dogs don't have any rights either, their handlers do.  That said, in some states, trainers of SDITs do have the legal right to bring the dog into public for training purposes.




> Xeph: BTW, it's not hard these days to find an unscrupulous doctor that will "prescribe" a service dog for anybody.


This is SO TRUE! And the doctor doesn't even have to be unscrupulous - some doctors just don't understand the level of impairment necessary for someone to qualify as disabled under the ADA.




> hulkamaniac said: Which is why I wouldn't propose any fees. You get a letter from your doctor saying that you would benefit from a service dog. Your dog gets a CGC or TDI or some similar certification (the fee for which would be waived). You could pick the dog yourself and train the dog yourself if you wished.


Any government-run certification scheme would have to charge a fee or it couldn't stay afloat. What's more, you're bringing in other organizations (the AKC and TDI) and trainers and asking them to waive fees.


Certification is a difficult subject because it would be hard to implement, difficult to have available for the general public, and potentially expensive. What's more, as has been demonstrated on this thread, some people are very opposed to mandatory certification.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Service dogs don't have any rights either, their handlers do. That said, in some states, trainers of SDITs do have the legal right to bring the dog into public for training purposes.


I was referring to the dog as a "team" sense. I know the dog doesn't have rights inherently.

But yes, you're right. I forgot about that. Some of the more progressive states allow SDIT's more rights. Not sure how I forgot. When Priscilla was a SDIT, I researched my rights as a SDIT handler. I found that in California, SDIT's are allowed the same rights as a SD. That is why I was able to take Priscilla into stores for habituation and socialization.


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

RBark said:


> I mean, honestly. If a dog is well behaved, not interacting with people, not barking at people, not peeing on everything, well groomed, etc. Does it really matter THAT much? Yes, still bad. But even with a ID system, you would not catch these guys. So the law would not be regulated for them.
> 
> .


Yes I think it does matter. I think that if the dog doesnt have the right to be in a store or restaurant it should not be there. I understand what you are saying about being identified as disabled with an id system and that it probably wouldnt work anyways...But what about the people who are allergic to dogs? This is where I get annoyed with the people who bring there non service dogs into places they dont belong they totally disregard everyone else. There are some breeds that really affect my husband and he has to have a puffer to breathe, understandable if the dog has a job to do but people also dont think about that when they bring their dogs everywhere with them.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> There are some breeds that really affect my husband and he has to have a puffer to breathe, understandable if the dog has a job to do but people also dont think about that when they bring their dogs everywhere with them.


Which is awful and we understand that...but that ONE person that can leave vs an *entire group* of people that could have to pay for it...that's not right either.

The issue is not black and white.

I am disabled (which is still hard for me to even admit sometimes), but I do not take up a handicapped parking spot. I'm too stubborn for it yet. I acknowledge I need my dog, but I refuse to use a space. That doesn't make me any less disabled (probably just makes me more stupid xD) and any less subject to horrible legislation that may take away my right to live freely like anybody else.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

misty073 said:


> Yes I think it does matter. I think that if the dog doesnt have the right to be in a store or restaurant it should not be there. I understand what you are saying about being identified as disabled with an id system and that it probably wouldnt work anyways...But what about the people who are allergic to dogs? This is where I get annoyed with the people who bring there non service dogs into places they dont belong they totally disregard everyone else. There are some breeds that really affect my husband and he has to have a puffer to breathe, understandable if the dog has a job to do but people also dont think about that when they bring their dogs everywhere with them.


Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's OK for them to do it.

But an ID system will never stop them. They are well behaved dogs with fake ID's. Nobody would question it. The only way they would get caught is if their dog did something like bite someone. But even without ID they would be caught.

As a result, these are not people we can ever prevent from public access without doing something like stopping every disabled person from going into a store, checking ID, calling it in, getting verified, and so on. And seriously, anyone who thinks that's an acceptable tradeoff would have to be a psychopath. (I know nobody in this thread said that is what should be done, so i'm not accusing anyone of thinking that)

So these people are not the ones we're fighting. It's a losing battle that nobody will ever win without castrophic results to all involved.

Education about ADA, however, CAN make a difference. Not changing it, teaching people what their rights are in regards to SD. Most people do not care enough to learn, and that's not the fault of the disabled, and the disabled should not pay for that.


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

RBark said:


> Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's OK for them to do it.
> 
> But an ID system will never stop them. They are well behaved dogs with fake ID's. Nobody would question it. The only way they would get caught is if their dog did something like bite someone. But even without ID they would be caught.
> 
> ...


I realized you werent saying it was ok  I think I was just venting from another point of view on the jerks who think its ok to take there dogs where ever they want. To be honest I have never even (until this thread) thought about how they would affect a disabled person in regards to causing them problems or grief in their daily life. I have always just been annoyed at the fact that they dont care about the effects their dog in the store has on someone else.


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Which is awful and we understand that...but that ONE person that can leave vs an *entire group* of people that could have to pay for it...that's not right either.
> 
> .


I realize he could just leave and he is just one person (although I am sure there are more)  like I posted above, my post was more venting about the people who dont get it...and dont think about others when taking their dogs where ever they want.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

misty073 said:


> I realized you werent saying it was ok  I think I was just venting from another point of view on the jerks who think its ok to take there dogs where ever they want. To be honest I have never even (until this thread) thought about how they would affect a disabled person in regards to causing them problems or grief in their daily life. I have always just been annoyed at the fact that they dont care about the effects their dog in the store has on someone else.


I do care. I think most disabled people would understand too. Just like we have can't do anything about our disabilities, you can't do anything about your allergies.

But real service dogs are impeccably groomed. Most allergic reactions are from dander and salvia. A impeccably groomed service dog is not going to salviate everywhere either. Or leave much dander, if any at all.

Kobe would be an AWESOME Public Access Service Dog. He can pass CGC and TDI blindfolded. To such a point I find no point in doing those tests (I'm not really much for bragging and trophies). He has the PERFECT attitude for a public access service dog. His traits are ideal for me as a hearing dog. 

That said, the grooming requirements of keeping a freaking Giant Malamute would likely single-handedly end any thought whatsoever I had on that subject. That is one of the (many) reasons I do not train him as a service dog.

So it's not just that. People don't like seeing dog fur on clothes when clothes shopping. And so on. So people DO care.

Well, people with real Service Dogs do, that is. The ones who don't... we share them as an enemy.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Strauss is kept well groomed and kept smelling pleasant. He may LOOK unkempt because of cowlicks, but I take care to make sure that he's ok to be around. Being a Shepherd, he IS going to leave hair somewhere, but I do take care to mind his shaking.

He shakes to settle the harness better on his body. When he comes out of the car the first thing I tell him to do is "Shake" out in the parking lot. If it's raining and I know he'll want to shake again, we stand outside the door and I tell him to shake. When we have risen from a seat I try to get him as close to the door as I can (or outside). He can't always wait, but I do keep these things in mind.

While I'm exercising my rights to be out and about like others, I am also very aware of others.

If you are allergic to dogs, if it is possible, I will move, but sometimes this is not possible.

When we go out to dinner, there are a very limited number of places my dog can be. 99% of the time a booth is better than a table because my dog can crawl under the table, lie down, and be out of the way where he's not getting stepped on by servers, or passersby that aren't paying attention.

If you're allergic to dogs but we're at the only table that has a booth...I'm very sorry, but you're out of luck and you'll have to move if you can. I can't put my dog in danger (and it IS dangerous on a restaurant floor!) because you're allergic to him.


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

RBark said:


> Well, people with real Service Dogs do, that is. The ones who don't... we share them as an enemy.



 see and until this thread I didnt even think about it. I just got annoyed that they felt it was their right to take their dog where ever they wanted. I never realized or thought about the fact that by them taking their dogs in, they were making things harder for service dogs by having people being more judgemental of if service dogs were really service dogs...even though I was probably one of the ones questioning it when a dog wasnt wearing something identifying ...did that ramble make sense LOL


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

Xeph said:


> If you're allergic to dogs but we're at the only table that has a booth...I'm very sorry, but you're out of luck and you'll have to move if you can. I can't put my dog in danger (and it IS dangerous on a restaurant floor!) because you're allergic to him.


I wouldn expect anyone to move and so they shouldnt. If a service dog was right beside my husband (and it was a lab or other breed that he is worse with) than such is life. The dog has every right to be there and like you said he could move...its the ignorant people who dont have any reason to take their dogs into places with and dont think about others that annoy me


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Something else to keep in mind (just in general) is that sometimes a person with a service dog will remove the dog themselves if the dog is having an off day. This isn't a sign that the dog is a bad working animal or that the owner is a fake, but ALL of our dogs have those days where they just aren't with it or are feeling a bit sick.

It is best for the handler and their company as well as the dog for the dog to be separated for awhile (when it is possible).

I have suffered through a day or two of no help from Strauss just because he couldn't handle it that day. If this were a frequent occurence I wouldn't still be working him, but it is infrequent and all that is needed is just a little bit of rest.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

We don't want to push the public too far. They will push back. Those with a need for a service dog need to work to identify the phonies and help control them. Otherwise the public is going to demand more identification and certification. The dog guide community has fought the access battle for about 100 years. They are happy to extend it to others with needs, but don't want to lose hard won ground due to phonies.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Those with a need for a service dog need to work to identify the phonies and help control them.


For once I completely agree with you xD


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

Wow. Pretty amazing to sit here reading the many discriminatory remarks from those who do not have a disability, and do not even get it that their viewpoint/remarks are discriminatory, insensitive, and in some cases, even outrageous, because it's such a violation of the disabled person's civil rights to force the disabled to do something abled persons are not required to do in order to do the simple, ordinary, mundane things like going to the grocery store to get food! Arrrgh! 

To force the disabled to carry ID, letters from drs., wear colored vests/gear is a total violation of civil rights! Good grief. The whole point of the ADA, as pointed out already (and quite eloquantly, I might add), is to attempt to ensure equality for those who are disabled. 

As for the disabled parkiing spots being a PRIVILEGE granted the disabled, GOOD GOD. THINK about it. I mean REALLY think about it. The REASONS for needing to be closer to the doors. It's HARD WORK for many people to just get in and out of the vehicle, to walk, to breathe. From heart conditions to having no legs, and the numerous other reasons in between make it extremely difficult to shop, go out to eat, to the dentist, etc., so the parking spots closer to the door at least help, somewhat. It's the selfish abled people who take those spots, and why there must be permits issued and displayed, or every Tom, ****, and Harry would pull in to park there. Because they don't care.

The fakers who bring dogs with them where pet dogs are not allowed may be irritating to infuriating, however, let me tell you, it's no joywalk in the park to have a Service Dog accompanying you everywhere you go to do things abled persons take for granted. Public access is hard on the SD, and often exhausting for the handler, not only because of the disability itself, but because of interference by abled people! Using public restrooms, often not accessable under ADA standards, can make life a living hell! Especially when you travel. The fakers don't go through this, but even so, shopping with a dog, SD or not, is not the carefree activity it is without a dog accompanying you. 

I obtained Maddy as a pet companion. Little did we know that she would gradually take on tasks to assist me over the years. Little things at home that I had trouble with at first, because of a degenerative joint disease. My thumb joints are shot - it's bone on bone. Without Maddy's help, I would be in a world of trouble every single day. Now, she also ensures I don't break any more bones falling, because, although she's been trained to brace, she knows before I do that I'm going to go down. How? I don't know. But she does. And she prevents it. 

I do take issue with the comment that program dogs are better trained than owner-trained SDs. Hah! I've seen some pretty poory trained program dogs, even guide dogs, at that. Dang near got bitten by one in the airport. Not only that, while at the airport, a dog with a Security person was barking and lunging in an attempt to go after Maddy! Maddy remained quietly at my side, ignoring the whole scene. Having been with me from the age of 9 weeks, we've earned the mutual trust between us, and developed the seamless teamwork because of our relationship. Flying in cabin together is no easy feat, either. Cramped in small spaces, rude people, people who grab at her, or step on her feet. There's good reason for the disabled to be seated first! And the horrible woman on the plane who demanded we get off because SHE was allergic to dogs, and went on and on about filthy dogs on a plane - to her I say, KISS MY GRITS! She was put in her place by the flight attendent who told her in no uncertain terms that if she did not stop her tirade immediately, she would be exited from the flight. It was extremely uncomfortable for me because everyone on board was looking at us, and there was much whispering and not-so-quiet talk among other passengers. 

Want to bitch about my dog? Go ahead. Make my day.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

RBark said:


> No. When you bring a dog into a store, the only rights a store has is to ask you "Is she a service animal?" and "Are you disabled". And the only answer you have to give is Yes/No answers, you don't have to explain yourself to anyone. If they try to ask for further information, you can ignore them and if they persist, call the police on the store.


I work in a restaurant and we've had this lady come in with two Pomeranians, claiming they're service dogs. We all know they are not, she likes to take her dogs everywhere with her and she knows the law says the above, that we can't ask anything other than if they are service dogs. IMO, it stinks and it gives true disabled people & true service dogs a bad name.


----------



## Sophie's Mum (Jan 24, 2009)

I've read through all the thread and my biggest concern is for the safety of the service dog. If there aren't stricter regulations, and the fakers can come and go as they please since there's not much telling who's legitimate or not, safety becomes a huge issue.

I can just imagine a day where people who are faking and people who are legitimate come into contact. Those faking dogs who aren't trained can very well decide that the work dog is someone to pick on. I see a bloodbath in the making with the current laws. Can you imagine a service dog being attacked in a public place? 

I know this scenario has already happened out in public ( I forget where I read that one) but with more and more loopholes, those fakers are more likely to bring their dog aggressive pooches into contact with a working dog.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

you know...i sprained my ankle yesterday...and while its not the same as being disabled...it kind of gives one an inkling of what its like to be disabled.

Im going to have to side with Xeph and RBark. i dont like the feeling of people staring at me with pity in their eyes. it makes me want to punch something.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

The handicap parking brings up a good point. I had a friend that drove a couple 50 miles to attend a court hearing. When they were leaving, he parked in a handicap spot to load the lady in the wheelchair. He was ticketed for not having a handicap plate or hang tag. 

To keep the fakers out, you have to a plate or hangtag. They are visible every where you go. If life was fair, we would all be agile, intelligent, and mentally stable.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> The handicap parking brings up a good point. I had a friend that drove a couple 50 miles to attend a court hearing. When they were leaving, he parked in a handicap spot to load the lady in the wheelchair. He was ticketed for not having a handicap plate or hang tag.
> 
> To keep the fakers out, you have to a plate or hangtag. They are visible every where you go. If life was fair, we would all be agile, intelligent, and mentally stable.


Before my dad passed away, we had to wait a couple weeks for a doctors appointment, where i was going to ask him for a note for handicap placard. When we went for that appointment, I had no placard so i had to drop him off at the door, in a wheelchair, wheel him inside, then come back out to move the car. As I was running for the door, I saw a pharmacutical saleswoman going out to one of the cars in the handicap spot. Pi**ed me off to no end but this was a rather large medical practice, I had no way of finding out who she was visiting.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Sophie's Mum said:


> I've read through all the thread and my biggest concern is for the safety of the service dog. If there aren't stricter regulations, and the fakers can come and go as they please since there's not much telling who's legitimate or not, safety becomes a huge issue.
> 
> I can just imagine a day where people who are faking and people who are legitimate come into contact. Those faking dogs who aren't trained can very well decide that the work dog is someone to pick on. I see a bloodbath in the making with the current laws. Can you imagine a service dog being attacked in a public place?
> 
> I know this scenario has already happened out in public ( I forget where I read that one) but with more and more loopholes, those fakers are more likely to bring their dog aggressive pooches into contact with a working dog.


Not trying to be mean, but this is a logical fallacy.

Our service dogs are 1000000x more at risk of DA dogs or injury when we are at dog parks, off leash hiking areas, taking our dogs for a walk down the street, in the backyard, at Petco, and on and on and on.

Compared to all of that, stores are the safest place in the world outside of our own houses. 

I appreciate your concern for the safety of the working dog but, this is no reason at all to make regulations.



Labsnothers said:


> To keep the fakers out, you have to a plate or hangtag. They are visible every where you go. If life was fair, we would all be agile, intelligent, and mentally stable.


It has already been said why this is redundant. The "If life was fair" argument is silly because right now, the laws are in our favor. I should be telling you "If life was fair, all the disabled would have to have ID's exposed, but it's not so deal with it."

You don't like that argument? Well, we don't like yours either. Fortunately, we, the disabled, are the ones who have the law in our favor. 

When people come up with a better argument than "If life was fair" it might be worth answering.

It is infringing upon our right to force us to have an ID, period. There is no justification. If you want to catch fakers, find a different way. Infringing upon the core human rights of the disabled is NOT worth finding a couple fakers.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

RBark - I want to make sure I understand you. I think my sleep deprived mind is reading your post wrong and totally misconstrueing what you're saying and I apologize in advance.

It looks like you're saying that the law is currently biased in favor of the disabled and you think that's Ok. Is that correct? or am I misunderstanding?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> RBark - I want to make sure I understand you. I think my sleep deprived mind is reading your post wrong and totally misconstrueing what you're saying and I apologize in advance.
> 
> It looks like you're saying that the law is currently biased in favor of the disabled and you think that's Ok. Is that correct? or am I misunderstanding?


In the sense that the current ADA reflects what the disabled believe to be fair, yes.

In an attempt to make sure I am not misunderstanding your question, I assume by bias you don't mean anything negative. 99% of laws in existence is biased in the favor of the abled, so it would be silly to think its unfair that the disabled would have the advantage in the ADA since the ADA is about basic human rights and equality.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

RBark said:


> In the sense that the current ADA reflects what the disabled believe to be fair, yes.
> 
> In an attempt to make sure I am not misunderstanding your question, I assume by bias you don't mean anything negative. 99% of laws in existence is biased in the favor of the abled, so it would be silly to think its unfair that the disabled would have the advantage in the ADA since the ADA is about basic human rights and equality.


I'm not sure I agree with your point of 99% of laws being biased in favor of the abled though I admit I've got a different perspective than you.  Can you give me some examples?


----------



## KarenJG (Jan 31, 2010)

I've stayed out of this - not disabled, don't have a service dog, and I don't know the answer to this "problem" of fakers. All I can say is that it really grinds my butt when cheaters get away with taking advantage of laws that are supposed to HELP people. I feel the same way about welfare cheats and women who say they were raped when they weren't. Not only are they abusing the law, they're making things worse for the people who are supposed to be helped by the law. Think of all the people who are against welfare because they heard of one instance where a cheater got something s/he wasn't supposed to. Think of all the women who actually WERE raped, who are doubted because somebody heard of a woman who claimed to be raped when she wasn't. 

But... the answer to those cheaters is not to stop providing welfare to those who need it, nor to stop prosecuting rapes, so I would suppose the answer to "service dog fakers" isn't to further burden the disabled, either.

One thing though, with the welfare cheat and the false-rape claimers, there are actually mechanisms to punish those who are caught - charge them with fraud or filing a false claim, or whatever. What are the consequences for faking a service dog? I don't think there are any.

That is what I'd like to see changed, somehow. But the "how" would necessarily include proving it. So, how do we do that? That gets us right back to square one, I think. In order to have a way to prove a dog ISN'T a service dog, there must be a way to prove a dog IS a service dog, right?

Like I said, I don't have the answer.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> I'm not sure I agree with your point of 99% of laws being biased in favor of the abled though I admit I've got a different perspective than you. Can you give me some examples?


It would be hard to list a ton off the top of my head. That said, probably the most menacing, outrageous, and heinous thing is the current laws on hiring practices and employee rights.

There is very little real-world ability to defend ourselves. The numbers make this impossible to argue. 98% unemployment among the deaf vs 10% unemployment among the hearing.

There's no way around, under, or over that. The numbers speak for itself, that discrimination against the disabled is rampant in this world, and the current laws relating to the workplace make it impossible for the disabled to defend against discrimination.

You may hate Affirmative Action, but it was Affirmative Action that enabled the minorities to have a more balanced playing field. Requiring companies to have, for instance, 10% black people.. eventually allowed those black people to turn into middle class people, have children born into a middle class environment, and grow up with better choices. That cycle went on, and in the modern society the playing field is relatively more balanced.

There is no affirmative action for the disabled. There is no recourse. This 98% unemployment number dictates the course of most disabled people's lives.

Compared to that, the ADA is but a breath in a tornado.


----------



## Smithcat (Aug 30, 2008)

YoSaffBridge said:


> No offence, but what is really the likelihood of a service dog being attacked in a grocery store by a dog brought in by a faker? Dog aggressive dogs can already come into contact with service dogs outside on the streets or anywhere else where pet dogs are currently allowed or where dogs may roam free. I would think the chance of a service dog being attacked outdoors would be much greater than the chance of one being attacked in a store. Why should disabled people have more regulations imposed on them based on improbable "what if" scenarios?


The likelihood? How about this....my wifes Guide has been gone after twice by faker dogs in grocery stores. Twice in 5 years. (And that is just her current Guide, it does not include her retired Guide, which had to be retired partly because of issues such as this.) As to how many times in the "regular" public venue? I stopped counting after it hit 20.
I dunno. Maybe it is just the cavalier attitude that most regular pet owners have. Maybe my wife and her Guide are just natural magnets for pet dog attacks.
But the likelihood is there, and it does happen.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

KarenJG said:


> I've stayed out of this - not disabled, don't have a service dog, and I don't know the answer to this "problem" of fakers. All I can say is that it really grinds my butt when cheaters get away with taking advantage of laws that are supposed to HELP people. I feel the same way about welfare cheats and women who say they were raped when they weren't. Not only are they abusing the law, they're making things worse for the people who are supposed to be helped by the law. Think of all the people who are against welfare because they heard of one instance where a cheater got something s/he wasn't supposed to. Think of all the women who actually WERE raped, who are doubted because somebody heard of a woman who claimed to be raped when she wasn't.
> 
> But... the answer to those cheaters is not to stop providing welfare to those who need it, nor to stop prosecuting rapes, so I would suppose the answer to "service dog fakers" isn't to further burden the disabled, either.
> 
> ...


Good post.

There is a way to prove a dog is a service dog. A service dog must perform two functions that remedy a disability. In court, a faker would have to offer that evidence.

Now, before all the naysayers say that they could just train two things. Do consider that the fakers who are capable of training their dogs will also generally have well-behaved dogs, and thus, not be caught. Again, while this is bad and should not be allowed, they are also not the real problem.

The real problem are the people with out of control dogs. People with out of control dogs are not training their dogs, and thus, would not be able to prove in the court of law that their dog can perform two functions that remedy a disability.

And yes, there is a severe financial and imprisonment penalty for impersonating a service dog. That is already in place, and it has already been enforced.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Smithcat said:


> The likelihood? How about this....my wifes Guide has been gone after twice by faker dogs in grocery stores. Twice in 5 years. (And that is just her current Guide, it does not include her retired Guide, which had to be retired partly because of issues such as this.) As to how many times in the "regular" public venue? I stopped counting after it hit 20.
> I dunno. Maybe it is just the cavalier attitude that most regular pet owners have. Maybe my wife and her Guide are just natural magnets for pet dog attacks.
> But the likelihood is there, and it does happen.


Nobody said it is impossible that a guide dog will get attacked in a store.

Only that regulating it based on attacks in a store is redundant because it won't prevent attacks outside the store. That's like attempting to remove a pebble from a person being held down by a mountain. Not worth regulating for.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I think anyone who fakes a service dog to gain dog access or fakes a disability just to get services ought to have their hides whipped off their butts. 

I had a dairy farm and one of the best employees I ever had also had a severe learning disability. She milked cows like a champ and was 100% reliable. I got her driving tractor and she was 100% focused and never ran a machine into the ground.. or damaged any equipment. I paid her as much as I could afford to pay her.. more than the "other guy" who showed up and worked.. but never reached or tried. He could do more than the person with a disability (he was a great mechanic) but of the two people I preferred the girl beause she cared and tried so hard.. and it showed. She made me money.

She left the job with me to become the head of Housekeeping at a Nursing home and she was there for years. 

I have never understood why anyone would deny a job to, or not interview, a disabled person if they could do the job with reasonable accommodation.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

> It would be hard to list a ton off the top of my head. That said, probably the most menacing, outrageous, and heinous thing is the current laws on hiring practices and employee rights.
> 
> There is very little real-world ability to defend ourselves. The numbers make this impossible to argue. 98% unemployment among the deaf vs 10% unemployment among the hearing.


I am NOT, in any way minimizing the employment difficulties faced by the deaf and others with disabilities. But, I do wonder where you get the statistic of 98% unemployment as I have heard ranges from 50 to 70 % (which is still very very high). And as for real-world defence, at least there are laws in place like the ADA and there is legal recourse in the courts if someone were fired due to a disability (aka illegal discrimination, same as firing for race or sex). Try being gay in many parts of the country where there are NO anti-discrimination laws in housing, employment, schools etc. (I'm not making a perfect analogy, I'm just saying that some laws in place are better than none).

I'm not disabled, I don't personally know what it is like to have to deal with the many difficulties that day-to-day life can present. But I have dealt with discrimination (racial and sex) to the point of even losing a job once, so my opinion is that basically anything that can *level* the playing field is good. There does need to be punishments in place for "fakers" though- just as someone above mentioned there would be for welfare cheats etc.


----------



## ERackley88 (Feb 6, 2010)

Well, I don't really wonder what her "disability" is, she's obviously mentally handicapped. How old is she? If she has parents around or other people responsible for her, I would contact them about this.

For the record, I have been in places chock full of "disabled" people and I'd say 70% of them could work... 40-50% were faking mental illness etc to get "free money". I get SSI myself, and although I can work, the eligibility for SSI is that you aren't capable of attaining a job that would make enough for you to live off of, basically. "substantial" earnings or whatever are anything above $700/month, so if your disability prevents you from attaining a job to earn much more than this, you're pretty much considered disabled. That's my understanding anyway. You can be able to work and still be considered disabled. I am just now testing my ability to work by trying to find an entry level job... some stuff happened and I officially became disabled about a year ago.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> I am NOT, in any way minimizing the employment difficulties faced by the deaf and others with disabilities. But, I do wonder where you get the statistic of 98% unemployment as I have heard ranges from 50 to 70 % (which is still very very high). And as for real-world defence, at least there are laws in place like the ADA and there is legal recourse in the courts if someone were fired due to a disability (aka illegal discrimination, same as firing for race or sex). Try being gay in many parts of the country where there are NO anti-discrimination laws in housing, employment, schools etc. (I'm not making a perfect analogy, I'm just saying that some laws in place are better than none).


Oops, I just went to verify my number. It is over 70% in most areas of the country. The 98% number I got was for another country.

There is SOME legal recourse for getting fired, but getting fired is generally not the issue, and for the most part, it's impossible to prove you were fired based on disability instead of something else. The issue is getting hired.


----------



## KarenJG (Jan 31, 2010)

RBark said:


> Good post.
> 
> There is a way to prove a dog is a service dog. A service dog must perform two functions that remedy a disability. In court, a faker would have to offer that evidence.
> 
> (snip)


How do they get to court? Does somebody swear out a complaint, or what? And who has "standing" to swear out a complaint, if that's the mechanism? A store employee? A customer?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> For the record, I have been in places chock full of "disabled" people and I'd say 70% of them could work... 40-50% were faking mental illness etc to get "free money". I get SSI myself, and although I can work, the eligibility for SSI is that you aren't capable of attaining a job that would make enough for you to live off of, basically. "substantial" earnings or whatever are anything above $700/month, so if your disability prevents you from attaining a job to earn much more than this, you're pretty much considered disabled. That's my understanding anyway. You can be able to work and still be considered disabled. I am just now testing my ability to work by trying to find an entry level job... some stuff happened and I officially became disabled about a year ago.


Not really a valid comparison. I am not talking about disabled people trying to get SSI or disabled people saying they can't get a job.

I am talking about disabled people who CAN get a job but are denied a job through discrimination.



> How do they get to court? Does somebody swear out a complaint, or what? And who has "standing" to swear out a complaint, if that's the mechanism? A store employee? A customer?


A lot of times it is other service dog owners who call the police on a faker, and work with the store to get there. There are other stuff too.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

RBark said:


> It would be hard to list a ton off the top of my head. That said, probably the most menacing, outrageous, and heinous thing is the current laws on hiring practices and employee rights.
> 
> There is very little real-world ability to defend ourselves. The numbers make this impossible to argue. 98% unemployment among the deaf vs 10% unemployment among the hearing.
> 
> ...


For the record I do not like affirmative action at all and I am also a member of a minority group. As a member of a minority group I would rather someone hire me because they felt I was the best person for the job, not because I fulfill some quota they need to meet so they don't get fined. If people choose not to hire me because I'm a member of a minority group it's their loss. I'm a damned good employee and their competitor becomes a better company from hiring me.

Anyway, I'm not sure where you get the 98% number. I find that number cited on a few web sites, but none of them list any sources and it's almost as if they just pulled that number out of thin air. Can you point me to the source of this? I found numbers from the Department of Labor from 2009 indicating the unemployment rate for all disabled people was at 13% and unemployment for everyone else at the time was at 8%. This is obviously higher, but no where near the 98% number you mentioned.

In any case, I would be interested in seeing a break down of demographics here. What is the average education level of a deaf person for instance?


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

> K9waggingtails Those dogs are emotional support dogs, not service dogs, and their handlers may not bring them into public accommodations where pet dogs are disallowed. Dogs must be individually trained to do work or perform tasks - comfort does not count.
> 
> Sally Conway, with the US DOJ, has said, "Generally speaking, if we're talking about therapy, comfort, emotional support animals -- and I think those typically are used interchangeably. Those are not going to be service animals under the ADA because they haven't been trained to -- remember that three-part -- that definition, they haven't been trained to do work or perform a task for the benefit of an individual with a disability. Typically, comfort, emotional support animals by their very presence certainly performs a valuable service, but it's an innate ability. It's their mere presence. It doesn't reach the level of having been trained to do work or perform tasks."


Yes there most certainly are emotional support dogs that get the same "right of entry" as other service dogs. I am sure it depends on the level of anxiety in the recipients but they do have them as "service dogs" not "therapy dogs". That might very well vary from state to state but here, there are emotional support dogs used for "service work".

As Sally Conway said, "Generally speaking" 

In fact, the numbers of "emotional support dogs" are certainly less then dogs trained for other tasks. Most of the dogs we trained had multiple basic commands. Retrieving items being the most common.


----------



## Smithcat (Aug 30, 2008)

Inga said:


> Yes there most certainly are emotional support dogs that get the same "right of entry" as other service dogs. I am sure it depends on the level of anxiety in the recipients but they do have them as "service dogs" not "therapy dogs". That might very well vary from state to state but here, there are emotional support dogs used for "service work".
> 
> As Sally Conway said, "Generally speaking"
> 
> In fact, the numbers of "emotional support dogs" are certainly less then dogs trained for other tasks. Most of the dogs we trained had multiple basic commands. Retrieving items being the most common.


Nope, sorry....but the ADA specifically excludes dogs that are for comfort or emotional support only. They are not classified as service dogs and their handlers do not have rights to public access with them.


----------



## Sophie's Mum (Jan 24, 2009)

I'm still not convinced. I think there's a huge possibility for danger toward a working dog. The danger is greater when confined in a small area such as a store with someone who's an imposter. 

If the faker has the kahoona's to go as far as faking, that means that their morals are so low that they wouldn't care if they run into a real working dog whether "fifi" is dog aggressive or not. Either they don't have the morals or they're blinded by love. Their dog wouldn't "do" that, she's so perfect and nobody will noticed that she's only there because I want my dog with me at all times.

It's bad enough that service dogs get attacked outside in public, but shouldn't they be safe inside?

Store owners can't tell whether a dog is truly a service dog by asking only 2 questions. I'm sure the fear of lawsuits stops them from questioning the legitimacy of the answers, therefore "fifi" gets in there without further though, until the health department catches them with a non-service dog in the store. The health department I think would be allowed to ask for more proof than a lowly store owner or restaurant. So for the store owner it becomes a catch 22 and everyone loses.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

hulkamaniac said:


> For the record I do not like affirmative action at all and I am also a member of a minority group. As a member of a minority group I would rather someone hire me because they felt I was the best person for the job, not because I fulfill some quota they need to meet so they don't get fined.  If people choose not to hire me because I'm a member of a minority group it's their loss. I'm a damned good employee and their competitor becomes a better company from hiring me.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not sure where you get the 98% number. I find that number cited on a few web sites, but none of them list any sources and it's almost as if they just pulled that number out of thin air. Can you point me to the source of this? I found numbers from the Department of Labor from 2009 indicating the unemployment rate for all disabled people was at 13% and unemployment for everyone else at the time was at 8%. This is obviously higher, but no where near the 98% number you mentioned.
> 
> In any case, I would be interested in seeing a break down of demographics here. What is the average education level of a deaf person for instance?





> http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/topics/employment_deaf_construction.htm


And yes, I realize you don't like Affirmative Action. However, that is because you were not born in the era that Affirmative Action was required. If it were not for Affirmative Action, you, your parents, your grandparents, and every minority you know would have a near-nonexistent chance of getting a decent job.

If you WERE born in the era where minorities couldn't get jobs because of racism, you would see things differently. So your success as a minority is built upon the foundation your ancestors built for you.

The same goes for the disabled. They need a foundation to support them. Affirmative Action gives that. Hopefully in the future, Affirmative Action may no longer be needed, because people will be truly equal. But today, is not that day. Today, there is still discrimination and injustice.

The average education level for deaf people is significantly lower than the average hearing person. GED's and HS diplomas are more common than any college education.

For reference, at probably the best school for the deaf in the world (California School for the Deaf, Fremont) I had to take my math, english, and science classes in 8th grade at the local College because they didn't have those classes even at 12th grade. When I moved to a public school in 10th grade, I was pretty far ahead of my class but not so that I had to take classes at a college.

So a deaf person graduating from HS might have the writing, math, and science level of the average 8th/9th grade hearing student.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Sophie's Mum said:


> I'm still not convinced. I think there's a huge possibility for danger toward a working dog. The danger is greater when confined in a small area such as a store with someone who's an imposter.
> 
> If the faker has the kahoona's to go as far as faking, that means that their morals are so low that they wouldn't care if they run into a real working dog whether "fifi" is dog aggressive or not. Either they don't have the morals or they're blinded by love. Their dog wouldn't "do" that, she's so perfect and nobody will noticed that she's only there because I want my dog with me at all times.
> 
> ...


So your solution to this is to compromise the basic rights of the disabled so that the abled can feel happy and special when they punish people?

The disabled have it hard enough already. Let's not go about making it harder, mmmkay?


----------



## Sophie's Mum (Jan 24, 2009)

To tell you the truth yes. Not for the reason of making life harder for those that are disabled, but because that's the only solution that would seem to work the best in this case. 

Obviously there has to be a solution that works for everyone because everyone is part of society. Your solution would be to punish the restaurant owner because of the vague laws governing service dogs? Let's keep the service dogs safe and let's not make life harder on the small business owner either because they have no real way to differentiate the real from the fake.

Also, what basic right is being stepped on by being asked to provide proof of legitimacy?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Sophie's Mum said:


> To tell you the truth yes. Not for the reason of making life harder for those that are disabled, but because that's the only solution that would seem to work the best in this case.
> 
> Obviously there has to be a solution that works for everyone because everyone is part of society. Your solution would be to punish the restaurant owner because of the vague laws governing service dogs? Let's keep the service dogs safe and let's not make life harder on the small business owner either because they have no real way to differentiate the real from the fake.


Egads.

I'm sorry but, it is obvious that you are abled. You can only care about things when they affect you, but you don't mind punishing others when it doesn't affect you.

Restaurant owners are NOT being punished.

Restaurant owners HAVE THE RIGHT to throw out unruly dogs.

The problem is NOT REGULATION. The problem is STORE OWNERS who do not know the RIGHTS they DO have.

If a faker service dog is acting up, they HAVE THE RIGHT TO THROW THE FAKER OUT!!!!!!

The fact that store owners do not know that is THEIR PROBLEM, not mine. The fact they do not educate themeselves on their rights is their fault. It is not rocket science here.

IF A FAKER DOG IS ACTING OUT YOU CAN KICK THEM OUT!!!!

So again, please EDUCATE YOURSELVES before trying to infringe upon the RIGHTS of the disabled.

Ignorance is the worst offender of crimes in humanity.


----------



## Smithcat (Aug 30, 2008)

In fact, if a legitimate service dog is acting up in a place of business.....they can legally be removed as well.


----------



## Sophie's Mum (Jan 24, 2009)

Here's a scenario for you:

Sweet little lady comes in with her service dog. A nice quiet little poodle. Waitress isn't so sure about the situation, all she knows is that dogs aren't allowed in the food establishment. She summons the owner who can only ask the 2 magical questions and sweet little old lady gets all huffy and tells them that Fifi is a service dog and gives owner bogus info. Owner, is suspicious but due to the sensitive subject, he can't do any more than he has and lets Fifi in.

In comes the Health board, who discovers that Fifi is only a pet and fines the business owner for allowing this well behaved dog into a food establishment.

We're not only talking about misbehaving dogs, what about the cute little dog that's quietly sitting on mommy's lap because mommy just can't bare to leave her home all alone? 

Once again I ask, what RIGHTS are being infringed upon by asking for proof that a dog is indeed a service dog?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Sophie's Mum said:


> Here's a scenario for you:
> 
> Sweet little lady comes in with her service dog. A nice quiet little poodle. Waitress isn't so sure about the situation, all she knows is that dogs aren't allowed in the food establishment. She summons the owner who can only ask the 2 magical questions and sweet little old lady gets all huffy and tells them that Fifi is a service dog and gives owner bogus info. Owner, is suspicious but due to the sensitive subject, he can't do any more than he has and lets Fifi in.
> 
> ...


If the Health board comes in and discovers that Fifi is only a pet, the owner of the dog will go to jail and be fined!!

NOTHING will happen to the restaurant! They were scammed.

I'm not going to repeat everything I posted in this thread. I've posted 20 huge posts on the rights that are being infringed upon. You skimmed the thread. It's not my duty to repeat myself again. If you want to know the rights being infringed upon, read the thread.


----------



## ipreferpi (May 9, 2009)

Wow, this whole thing really exploded from my original, and admittedly pretty unimportant situation. I'm happy that there are so many people here able to discuss differing view points without being overly hostile.

Just thought I'd step in and give another situation that is similar to the one with the crazy lady with the pom, but different in a pretty important way.

I was talking with a gal that works nextdoor to the pet store I train at, we got on the topic of service animals (I was explaining crazy-pom lady to her). She then told me about her friend, who has multiple conditions that make everyday tasks difficult for her, and whom is getting a "service dog".

When I asked what kind of dog, and from where, she responded her friend had her heart set on a chihuahua-beagle mix (Cheagle..sigh..). When I commented on that being an odd choice for a service animal (beagles being scent hounds, and while not stupid or impossible to train, easily distracted and often vocal...) She commented that her friend wasn't really planning on training the dog, but just wanted him around "to pet and stuff". Why in the name of Dog is this cr*p so wide spread? Why is it everywhere I look, there are "service animals" walking around, obviously untrained and uncomfortable with the situation.

It's like people aren't thinking about 1.) the impact that they make when they bring an untrained dog into a public place and call it a service dog. And 2.) the fact that because their dog is untrained, and often not socialized well enough, the dog itself suffers in these foreign and confusing situations. 

So what do you do when a truly disabled person, elects to have a "service dog" that's in all actuality just a pet? Is that better than an able person faking, or worse?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> So what do you do when a truly disabled person, elects to have a "service dog" that's in all actuality just a pet? Is that better than an able person faking, or worse?


Doesn't matter if it's better or worse. Illegal is illegal. They are both horrible human beings.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I just wanted to state that (at least in Wisconsin) there are THREE questions you can ask a person that enters with a dog.

"Is that a service dog?"
"Are you disabled?"
"What tasks does the dog perform/What does the dog do to mitigate your disability?"


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> I just wanted to state that (at least in Wisconsin) there are THREE questions you can ask a person that enters with a dog.
> 
> "Is that a service dog?"
> "Are you disabled?"
> "What tasks does the dog perform/What does the dog do to mitigate your disability?"


http://www.ada.gov/svcanimb.htm

Decided to go direct to the source instead LOL.



> Businesses may ask if an animal is a service animal or ask what tasks the animal has been trained to perform, but cannot require special ID cards for the animal or ask about the person's disability.


Looks like they can ask the tasks and if it's a service animal, but not if the person is disabled. It's been a while since I was working on it with Priscilla, so my memory was a bit fuzzy.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Ha! We were both wrong on that first one then! But there we go 

BTW people, it's the asking about the tasks the dog performs that will trip up and out the majority of fakers!!!!


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Ha! We were both wrong on that first one then! But there we go
> 
> BTW people, it's the asking about the tasks the dog performs that will trip up and out the majority of fakers!!!!


Probably. 

http://www.iaadp.org/tasks.html

A good resource.

http://www.iaadp.org/iaadp-minimum-training-standards-for-public-access.html

http://www.assistancedogsinternational.org/Standards/AssistanceDogPublicStandards.php


----------



## Smithcat (Aug 30, 2008)

The Big Three:

"Is that a service animal?"

"Is the animal required because of a disability?" 

(Note: while this may seem to be making an inquiry of the persons disability, it actually is not because it is not specifically asking about WHAT the disability IS.....just if the animal is required BECAUSE of a disability.)

"What mitigating tasks or work is the animal trained for?"


And yes, the task question trips up most fakers. "I feel so much better if Fluffums is here with me" is not a legal task or work as defined by the law.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Don't want to get off topic here but I sifted through that link and some of those behaviors are amazing.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I sifted through that link and some of those behaviors are amazing.


Yeah. And some of them are REALLY interesting to teach.

My new girl will be more of a challenge as she will have more responsibilities than Strauss does.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

RBark said:


> In the sense that the current ADA reflects what the disabled believe to be fair, yes.
> 
> In an attempt to make sure I am not misunderstanding your question, I assume by bias you don't mean anything negative. 99% of laws in existence is biased in the favor of the abled, so it would be silly to think its unfair that the disabled would have the advantage in the ADA since the ADA is about basic human rights and equality.


What you need to understand is that the current laws are open to abuse and will be changed. The public will get fed up with the fakers and the legitimate will suffer. Best give a little.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Labsnothers said:


> What you need to understand is that the current laws are open to abuse and will be changed. The public will get fed up with the fakers and the legitimate will suffer. Best give a little.


No it is NOT open to abuse!

The problem is store owners do not educate themselves on their rights. Problems with fakers nowdays is because of LACK OF EDUCATION on the current ADA laws, not because it's under regulated.

Give them a inch, and they will take a mile. And when they have their mile, they will ask for another inch, then take another mile.

If people are too stupid to know their own rights, then that's their problem, not ours. I'm not going ti give a little because people are lazy.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

While I completely agree with RBark, I can't resist:
*sings loudly* Give a little bit! Give a little bit of your love to me!


----------



## k9waggingtails (May 21, 2007)

Inga said:


> Yes there most certainly are emotional support dogs that get the same "right of entry" as other service dogs. I am sure it depends on the level of anxiety in the recipients but they do have them as "service dogs" not "therapy dogs". That might very well vary from state to state but here, there are emotional support dogs used for "service work".


Sorry Inga, but no. 28 CFR 36.104 clearly states, "Service animal means any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability".

Comfort and emotional support are not trained tasks, and do not qualify. In fact, the DOJ put out a NPRM that stated their intent to add regulatory text to the CFR stating, "[a]nimals whose sole function is to provide emotional support, comfort, therapy, companionship, therapeutic benefits, or promote 
emotional well-being are not service animals."


----------



## Max's Mom (Feb 24, 2009)

I have a somewhat unique situation with my service dog Max. I am legaly blind. I have lost most but not all of my vision and have a small visual field. If I go somewhere alone I need Max to negotiate around obstacles and to signal for curbs and steps. However, if I go somewhere with another person they do Max's job and he stays home. I am very thankful for my rights that enable me to be independant but I also am aware that some people are allergic to or are afraid of dogs and only use Max when necessary.


----------



## Ayanla (Jun 11, 2009)

The law HAS to be biased toward the disabled. There is no other way.


----------



## DodgingFlames (Feb 11, 2010)

Wow, this is pretty disgusting :x I'm in the process of training my American Bulldog to be a 'psychological support dog'

EDIT: I guess she would be a psychological service dog, moreso, because I am pretty much disabled

for my anxiety issues in public places, and I would NEVER take her into even petsmart if she weren't properly trained to at least not lunge at people. There should definitely be more protection for stores. I thought they weren't allowed to allow dogs who bothered other customers or seemed like they were difficult to handle? Though I guess if she is carrying him around in her purse he can't be bothering too many people. Right now the only thing stopping Brentin from qualifying for service dog status is her inability to not want to greet everyone she sees x.x But I would be even more anxious taking her somewhere if she was bothering people.

I can't believe the stupidity of some people.

Something is bothering me, too. RBark, you say you don't want a tag, and I know it's been brought up but...wtf why? The dog in itself is a tag! If you don't want people to know that 'you have issues' then why take the dog at all? THEY ALREADY KNOW. I understand the dog is helpful to you and leaving him or her at home would be worse, but I can't see how a tag would be an injustice to you. And trademarks are in place for the reason of discouraging fakes, not to mention that anyone with the means to recreate a tag has probably gone through quite a bit of research and work, whereas they would have hopefully already trained their dog and just don't want to pay the $100 or so to get real certification(I could be wrong about the pricing)

A dog on Dog Whisperer was being trained as an anxiety dog, and he had to pass an examination to assure that he knew proper basic commands and was not unruly. 

As someone who is looking into getting my dog specially certified, I am just fine with a tag of some sort. Most people probably wouldn't even recognize it as a specialized service dog tag so in public it would blend in fine unless closely inspected. I do not care for the vest idea(as some people may not be able to put a vest on their dog, and the dog may not enjoy wearing one) but a specially made ID tag like a Rabies tag would not be a big injustice to any disabled person.


----------



## Ayanla (Jun 11, 2009)

Having a required ID tag inherently gives store owners a right to inspect and question said tag, forcing a disabled person to effectively prove their legal right every time they're challenged. 

Are "fakers" really so big of an issue that we need to take rights away from an entire piece of the population in an effort to stop them?


----------



## DodgingFlames (Feb 11, 2010)

I guess thinking of it in terms of them having to inspect the tag it would be more reasonable as to why it would be unwanted. I know if I bring Brentin into somewhere and got asked a bunch of questions i'd probably cry. I could handle the two about being disabled and her being a service dog but if it went further I don't think I'd be okay with that.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

DodgingFlames said:


> --snip-- but a specially made ID tag like a Rabies tag would not be a big injustice to any disabled person.


You do not represent all disabled people.

The ADA does.

I have mentioned a dozen times why it is inappropriate in this thread to require ID's. I'm not going to repeat myself even further. 

It is nice that you don't mind having an ID. There is another thousand who do. The point is that you have the freedom to choose whether you want to display an ID or not. For more details, read my other posts..


----------



## Ayanla (Jun 11, 2009)

Ok, let's suppose for a moment that a law is passed that says all service dogs must wear XYZ tag.

The tags have to be manufactured and approved by a governing body in order to be official. This means all disabled people with service animals now incur an additional expense.

Having the tag permits business owners to inspect a tag for legitimacy. That interferes with the normal daily activities of the disabled person, which is a problem on it's own, but that's not the biggie. 

The biggie is that it allows the business owner to make a judgment call and gives them legal protection. Effectively, it allows any business owner, anywhere, to exclude all disabled people with service animals solely by saying that he did not believe their tag was legitimate. It strips disabled people with service animals of their right to move freely through their daily lives without unnecessary interference from strangers who may discriminate against them.

By requiring a special tag, or special identification, you shift a burden onto a disabled person that requires them to prove their disability. That, to me, is an absurd thing to do to an entire group of people just trying to go about their daily life in an attempt to catch a small handful of "fakers".


----------



## DodgingFlames (Feb 11, 2010)

No offense RBark but Ayanla made it much more clear to me in one post than you did in several. You seemed more concerned about being labeled, whereas I can see why a specialized tag would be an inconvenience if you were required to provide it to every store you entered. I was thinking that with an id type tag they could just see it from afar and only inspect if the dog was misbehaving in some way.

I definitely don't mean to make you think that I believe I represent disabled people. I can hear, see, and walk. I don't even group my disability in with yours so I would never be so pretentious as to say that I should make the rules.


----------



## Sophie's Mum (Jan 24, 2009)

With a fake tag, at least the faker can't feign ignorance since that person would have gone through the trouble of making or buying a fake tag. 

Just because the ADA made the rules doesn't mean they made the proper rules. Call me ignorant, flame me all you want, use your CAPITAL LETTERS on me, you won't change my "ignorant" mind. The ADA has made rules full of loopholes that allows the legitimate service dogs to get in the way of more and more disobedient imposters because there's no way to differentiate between a service dog and a pet.

I live in a society that includes both abled and disabled, actually, I live in a family that includes both abled and disabled... wheelchair and all.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Sophie's Mum said:


> With a fake tag, at least the faker can't feign ignorance since that person would have gone through the trouble of making or buying a fake tag.
> 
> Just because the ADA made the rules doesn't mean they made the proper rules. Call me ignorant, flame me all you want, use your CAPITAL LETTERS on me, you won't change my "ignorant" mind. The ADA has made rules full of loopholes that allows the legitimate service dogs to get in the way of more and more disobedient imposters because there's no way to differentiate between a service dog and a pet.
> 
> I live in a society that includes both abled and disabled, actually, I live in a family that includes both abled and disabled... wheelchair and all.


There is a way to differnate between a pet and service dog.

If the dog can not perform tasks to aid a disability it is not a service dog.

If they act out in public they can be removed from the premises.

Most people do not recognize their own advantages in life. They want to believe they are on equal ground with disabled people, but currently, they are not. This incorrect belief gets shoved down the throats of most disabled people.

You do not want to recognize these regulations that are already in place to protect people, for some reason that is beyond me.

With a fake tag, they could fake ignorance and say the store they got it from said it was real. It solves nothing.


----------



## Ayanla (Jun 11, 2009)

Sophie's Mum said:


> With a fake tag, at least the faker can't feign ignorance since that person would have gone through the trouble of making or buying a fake tag.
> 
> Just because the ADA made the rules doesn't mean they made the proper rules. Call me ignorant, flame me all you want, use your CAPITAL LETTERS on me, you won't change my "ignorant" mind. The ADA has made rules full of loopholes that allows the legitimate service dogs to get in the way of more and more disobedient imposters because there's no way to differentiate between a service dog and a pet.
> 
> I live in a society that includes both abled and disabled, actually, I live in a family that includes both abled and disabled... wheelchair and all.


I have absolutely zero people close to me who are disabled to the point that they need a service animal and I can see this issue clearly.

I would rather see a hundred fakers walk their dog through the grocery store than one legitimately disabled person hassled and/or run out of the store by a gung-ho employee on a power trip. 



> A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the animal is out of control and the animal's owner does not take effective action to control it (for example, a dog that barks repeatedly during a movie) or (2) the animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.


A faker either has a well behaved dog, in which case this is a non-issue, or they have a dog that is not well behaved, in which case the business owner can legally ask them to leave.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

The larger schools issue identification for the people and a tag for the dog. There are places others can get a recognized tag and identification inexpensively. I took a quick look and didn't see the link, but if somebody needs it, I could take time to dig it up. 

So what do you want to do, be stopped to explain what the dog is trained to do, or let the door keeper see the tag as you walk in and ignore you? It is not in management's best interest to let over zealous or dog hating employees hassle any customer. 

Those that need a dog can give a little, or wait until the public fed up with fakers and poorly trained dogs, the food service industry, and the large schools such as Guide dogs of America and Canine Companions for Independence get laws written that favor them. 

The current laws have too many loopholes. You can only push the public so far before they push back.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Labsnothers said:


> The larger schools issue identification for the people and a tag for the dog. There are places others can get a recognized tag and identification inexpensively. I took a quick look and didn't see the link, but if somebody needs it, I could take time to dig it up.
> 
> So what do you want to do, be stopped to explain what the dog is trained to do, or let the door keeper see the tag as you walk in and ignore you? It is not in management's best interest to let over zealous or dog hating employees hassle any customer.
> 
> ...


Um, you appear to be under a mistaken impression.

Yes service dog schools issue IDs. There's a million scam service dogs that issue fake IDs.

It is, however, the handlers choice whether or not to show the ID. Just because they issue it doesn't mean the handler uses it!!!!

And the majority of service dog right groups, including most large service dog training organizations, are NOT in favor of mandated ID. 

There are people fighting to give service dogs more rights, but there is almost nobody fighting to give them less rights. There is no "pushing" going on against the public. The only pushing going on is to help the disabled, not something disgusting like what is being suggested here: to take away the freedoms of a disabled person.

Show me a proof that any organization is trying to take away the freedom of the disabled, and I will show you a thousand who are trying to give us more freedom.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

And for the last time, there is no loophole. Any loopholes people might see is a figment of their overactive imagination.

Businesses ALREADY have the right to toss fakers out.

There is no loophole. The reason there are so many fakers is not because of a loophole. There are many people who do not know the rights they ALREADY have.

Understand? No loophole, only lack of education. Education would fix 75% of the problem. Adding more regulation won't help unless the owners are educated on the existing regulqation.

Again, there exists no loopholes.


----------



## Ayanla (Jun 11, 2009)

Labsnothers said:


> The larger schools issue identification for the people and a tag for the dog. There are places others can get a recognized tag and identification inexpensively. I took a quick look and didn't see the link, but if somebody needs it, I could take time to dig it up.
> 
> So what do you want to do, be stopped to explain what the dog is trained to do, or let the door keeper see the tag as you walk in and ignore you? It is not in management's best interest to let over zealous or dog hating employees hassle any customer.
> 
> ...


It may not be in management's best interest, but it will happen none the less. As it stands now, the company is punished harshly when their employees step out of line with regards to service animals. Requiring a service dog to wear/display a tag and, by extension, requiring the owner to show said tag upon request, is the equivalent of forcing them to have "papers" just to do the daily activities that everyone else can do without being accosted. It shifts protection from the disabled person, to the company. It allows one employee to openly discriminate while maintaining ignorance (it looked fake to me!) and the company to go unpunished. It's a step backwards in independence for the disabled and a step backwards in the protection of their rights as human beings.

Seriously, I can't fathom that someone is so wrapped up in what other people do. Some people pretend their pet dog is a service animal. Oh, the horror! If they're causing a disturbance or their dog is out of control, they can be legally asked to leave. If they are not, then there is no problem aside from the "it's not fair" aspect. We're not talking handicapped parking spaces here, where someone able-bodied can take that space from a disabled person and make it unavailable to those who need it. It's not like there's a 2 dog maximum per store and it's being hogged up by fakers.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

If store owners don't know their rights now, how will they know what to do with an id tag? Or even to look for one?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

RaeganW said:


> If store owners don't know their rights now, how will they know what to do with an id tag? Or even to look for one?


Yup. And if they require a tag, abled people will complain about how its so hard to see. Then they will ask for special leashes and collars. And because they are uneducated on both tags or leashes, they will ask for them to wear huge, brightly colored, reflective vests with flashing lights and a embedded tape that goes "Danger Danger Disabled Person on Premises please evacuate calmly and safely" and when that's not enough they will require all disabled people to have special forms of ids. Then when that's not enough, they will give up and take the service dogs from us.

The line must be drawn here. This is our freedom, and they shall not take it from us.


----------



## Sophie's Mum (Jan 24, 2009)

So we all have to wait until fifi gets in a snit and decides to lunge or snip at people so that she can get kicked out of the store guys. How fun! 

I guess it's a free for all in that case.

As for loopholes:

http://archives.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070901/news_1n1dogs.html

I'd love to be the one that has to wait until the owner of the establishement noticeds this guys misbehaved "LEGAL" service dog. No loopholes? Tell that to the people who are in contact with this guy. Bite first ask questions later.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-06-17/news/service-with-a-snarl/


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Sophie's Mum said:


> So we all have to wait until fifi gets in a snit and decides to lunge or snip at people so that she can get kicked out of the store guys. How fun!
> 
> I guess it's a free for all in that case.
> 
> ...


In what world would an ID tag have stopped that?

If those people simply got a fake id tag, or one that somewhat mimics it, that would still have happened.

If it did not happen in a store, it would have happened outside.

Complete and utter logical fallacy.


----------



## Ayanla (Jun 11, 2009)

As I said before, I would rather see a hundred fakers get away with it than remove the rights of even one legitimately disabled person.

There are already procedures in place to legally remove dogs not behaving appropriately. In the one article you linked, the animal in question has legal service dog tags, so in what way would requiring tags put a stop to that?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Try this on for size.


There is a higher rate of murder, sex crime, and theft among the black than the white.

Therefore in order to keep the white man safe, we will now require all black people to show an ID proving they are not criminals before entering a store. This is for the safety of white people in the store.

What? You think that's wrong? Try asking *insert a million people who have been harmed by black people* if they would have liked to know the black person wasn't a criminal before they got attacked/stolen from.

If this does not sound like tyranny and evil to you, then I can only pray for you and your family. If I am right and you find this example a horrible injustice and crime of humanity, then recognize the similarity to the argment you just gave.


----------



## Sophie's Mum (Jan 24, 2009)

Now this is grasping at straws. Oh yeah I forgot, there seems to be a dangerous offender's list out there to help with such situations, and guess what, it has nothing to do with colour either. Why would you try to put in the "race" discussion in there? Sheesh! 

Oh guess what too... here in beautiful Canada, race has nothing to do with higher propensity to commit crimes. 

As for the articles, that was to show you the loopholes that the ADA doesn't have in its laws. Seems to me California is having a great time finding those non existent loopholes.

Like I said before, even if fakers are faking vests and tags, at least they don't have the excuse of ignorance when/if they get caught.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Now this is grasping at straws. Oh yeah I forgot, there seems to be a dangerous offender's list out there to help with such situations, and guess what, it has nothing to do with colour either. Why would you try to put in the "race" discussion in there? Sheesh!
> 
> Oh guess what too... here in beautiful Canada, race has nothing to do with higher propensity to commit crimes.


No crap. It has nothing to do with color!

All your imaginary loopholes have nothing to do with the disabled too!

So stop trying to punish people for nothing!



> As for the articles, that was to show you the loopholes that the ADA doesn't have in its laws. Seems to me California is having a great time finding those non existent loopholes.


Again, you've been asked how ID's will help prevent that. Still waiting for your response.

Those are not loopholes. Those are people who BROKE THE LAW AND GOT CAUGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ayanla (Jun 11, 2009)

Sophie's Mum said:


> ... here in beautiful Canada, race has nothing to do with higher propensity to commit crimes....


Really? Are you certain of that? Are you sure it's not the fact that Canada, traditionally, does not like to record/publicize race statistics with regard to crime?

http://bit.ly/an2nHH

Now granted, that's 1997 we're talking about, but find me anything more recent that shows any different.

Edit to clarify: For the record, I'm not advocating any reason behind the statistics. The reason for a higher crime rate among minorities, particularly blacks, is one that's been in debate for a long time among the real professionals. I'm sure not going to pretend I know the answer.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

I just read those articles.

And OMG. Maybe we need to change things around. Those abled people who wrote the article are clearly not abled.

Those two articles are FULL of inaccuracies. All of those could have been EASILY prevented if people knew their legal rights about what they can do with service dogs.

My god.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> So we all have to wait until fifi gets in a snit and decides to lunge or snip at people so that she can get kicked out of the store guys. How fun!


Quite frankly, Sophie's Mum, I wish you'd just...you know....be quiet. You are NOT disabled, and I don't know if you realize it, but you are being extremely prejudiced. You are NOT going to help me and mine by requiring us to have more ID.

In fact, if you haven't read it, I suggest you go over to the thread I started in regards to the life of my SD, so you can attempt to understand what he and I go through *every single day*.

The more I read, the more I feel you don't have any concern for the disabled an their dogs. You only have concern for how the fakers affect YOUR life while you're out shopping.

It's insulting and offensive.

ETA: By the way, being in a family that has disabled people in it does not mean you automatically understand what that person goes through, and it certainly doesn't give you license to encourage discrimination by requiring SDs to wear IDs.

My brother is a schizophrenic....that's a disability. I am disabled too, but do not share that particular ailment, so I can not possibly understand the torment involved with living in that condition.

Do ANY of your family members actually use a service dog? If not, why do you feel so qualified to try and nullify the rights that we fought so hard to earn? In fact, why do you feel qualified to try and nullify these rights at all? It wouldn't affect you any... but it sure would affect the rest of us.


----------



## Sophie's Mum (Jan 24, 2009)

We have a completely different view of the world, we canadians and americans.

Here in Canada, we don't gauge crime with race as easily therefore when we leave race out of the equation in most situations. Actually we don't even do statistics with crimes relating to race.

Most times, when a newspaper gets opened up, there's a white face looking back at me describing the criminal's wrong doings.

I still think it's a low blow to bring race into the equation. 

Here's an example of the way things are done here and why.

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5000190761

By the way, in Alberta, service teams must be ready to show their proof when entering public places. The proof is not necessarily asked for but it's the responsibility of the handicapped person to carry it with him/her, just like it's my responsibility to carry my identification when driving.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Sophie's Mum said:


> So we all have to wait until fifi gets in a snit and decides to lunge or snip at people so that she can get kicked out of the store guys. How fun!


Umm, yeah. Disabled people have a right to have their well behaved dog with them. You can't kick them out simply because they MIGHT cause an issue. 

A person with kids MIGHT cause an issue. 
A person with a cane MIGHT cause an issue. 
A student MIGHT cause an issue. 
A single white male MIGHT cause an issue.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> The proof is not necessarily asked for but it's the responsibility of the handicapped person to carry it with him/her, just like it's my responsibility to carry my identification when driving.


Then I will be sure not to live in a place so discriminating as Canada. I have enough trouble with it here in the states. Always good to know that Canada supports discrimination though!

It shouldn't be the responsibility of the handicapped to carry around an ID that basically says "I'm disabled!"

How disgusting.

And comparing an ID stating that a person is in fact disabled is *not even close to being the same* as having to carry a driver's license or other form of ID! EVERYBODY must do that. The disabled are being *singled out*, and it disturbs me that you don't have a problem with that.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Sophie's Mum said:


> We have a completely different view of the world, we canadians and americans.
> 
> Here in Canada, we don't gauge crime with race as easily therefore when we leave race out of the equation in most situations. Actually we don't even do statistics with crimes relating to race.
> 
> ...


Wrong, wrong, wrong on all counts.

In Alberta, ID is PROVIDED by the government but is not REQUIRED. The disabled person does NOT have to carry it with them!!!!



> http://www.seniors.alberta.ca/CSS/sda/





> Government of Alberta identification cards are available to users of qualified service dogs. The identification cards have an Alberta Government logo and a picture of the individual and the service dog. The cards are not mandatory, but they are available to service dog teams to help them prove they are qualified under the Service Dogs Act.


Even your oh-so-special Canada does NOT require it!!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Blame Canada, blame Canadaaaaaaaaa (South Park anybody?)!


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Sophie's Mum said:


> We have a completely different view of the world, we canadians and americans.
> 
> Here in Canada, we don't gauge crime with race as easily therefore when we leave race out of the equation in most situations. Actually we don't even do statistics with crimes relating to race.
> 
> ...


And yes, I know linking race to crime is bullshit!!

Linking service dogs and disabled people to crime is complete and utter horsecrap too.


----------



## Ayanla (Jun 11, 2009)

Sophie's Mum said:


> ...Here in Canada, we don't gauge crime with race as easily therefore when we leave race out of the equation in most situations. Actually we don't even do statistics with crimes relating to race.
> 
> Most times, when a newspaper gets opened up, there's a white face looking back at me describing the criminal's wrong doings.
> 
> I still think it's a low blow to bring race into the equation...


Ignoring factual statistics doesn't make them go away. There is a difference in collecting data and reporting that factual data, and making commentaries on why the data is the way it is. How do you ever propose to rectify the fact that a higher percentage of minorities are represented in the prison population if your response to it is to bury your head in the sand rather than accurately record the data and have open discussions as to where there are flaws in the system?

I absolutely think the parallel between race and disability is a valid one. It may not be one your comfortable with, but I think it's a pretty valid comparison.

What is it that bothers you so much? Is it just the fact that some people are getting away with something?


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

Ok I stepped out of this thread a while back, but I have been reading and now feel the need to comment again

Sophie's mum why is it that you care so much whether or not the dogs are tagged? How does the situation affect you so much that you cant see what is being said in this thread?


----------



## Sophie's Mum (Jan 24, 2009)

Sorry to burst your bubble:

http://www.seniors.alberta.ca/CSS/sda/FAQs.asp#24

*snip* 

*If identification cards are not mandatory, why should I apply for a card?*

In order to be granted the rights outlined in the Service Dog Act, an Albertan with a disability who requires a service dog, must have an identification card. If a service dog team enters a public place without an identification card, they may be denied access

Opinions are for everyone here I thought. I mean no disrespect for those who are disabled, but my opinion matters just as much as everyone else's. It is my opinion that identifying service dogs easily will be safer for the public and for those in need of the dogs.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Must be.

What I find to be even more insulting is that she appears to think that the disabled can't regulate themselves in this regard. We are not idiots. We monitor things a lot more than people give us credit for.

Do I go out of my way to out a possible imposter? No. Because I don't have to.

As it was mentioned earlier, if you see another team in the store, you just kind of naturally gravitate towards each other and start discussing things. Most people are too ignorant to realize their dog doesn't even qualify as an SD, so exposing them is not hard. Simple conversation is enough.

I will never, EVER try to expose somebody as a phony through forceful means. It is counterproductive and could me (and many other teams) into a LOT of trouble!

The point is, we do know what is going on, and we DO do our best to keep things safe for everybody.


----------



## Smithcat (Aug 30, 2008)

I can just imagine it now:

A disabled person walks into a place of public accommodation with their service dog. A uniform wearing official of the place of public accommodation approaches and begins the dialogue:

"Ja, und may I see your papiss, please? You must haff ze papiss to enter, Ja?"

"Jawol. Zer Gut. Und now you vill affix zis yellow star to your clothing, Ja? Zat vay, we can tell zat you are disabled und ze hund ist a real service dog. You vill comply."

I do believe that there was a certain governmental "authority" in recent history that already tried forcing people of certain races, disabilities, and sexual orientations to identify themselves by having to wear a "star" on their clothing in order to go about thier normal everyday business, and without this "identification", they were not able to buy, sell or even travel without harassment. And now some want to do it all over again.

No thanks.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Sophie's Mum said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble:
> 
> http://www.seniors.alberta.ca/CSS/sda/FAQs.asp#24
> 
> ...


They MAY be denied access. It HELPS prove it. 

Not. Required.


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

Ayanla said:


> What is it that bothers you so much? Is it just the fact that some people are getting away with something?


Looks like we asked at the same time


----------



## Ayanla (Jun 11, 2009)

Sophie's Mum said:


> ...
> Opinions are for everyone here I thought. I mean no disrespect for those who are disabled, but my opinion matters just as much as everyone else's. It is my opinion that identifying service dogs easily will be safer for the public and for those in need of the dogs.


I think the problem, and I am going to try to say this as delicately as I can and hope I'm not breaking any rules, is that you are coming across as antagonistic both in relation to the disabled and to Americans in general.

I'm also still not seeing anything beyond your personal opinion that indicates the increase in safety, if one exists, is enough to warrant forcing the disabled to register and present their papers for scrutiny at every establishment.


----------



## Smithcat (Aug 30, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Blame Canada, blame Canadaaaaaaaaa (South Park anybody?)!


Sorry....its Blame Canada, blame Canadaaaaaaaaaa......*EH?*


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> A disabled person walks into a place of public accommodation with their service dog. A uniform wearing official of the place of public accommodation approaches and begins the dialogue:
> 
> "Ja, und may I see your papiss, please? You must haff ze papiss to enter, Ja?"
> 
> "Jawol. Zer Gut. Und now you vill affix zis yellow star to your clothing, Ja? Zat vay, we can tell zat you are disabled und ze hund ist a real service dog. You vill comply."


I...I think I love you.



> They MAY be denied access. It HELPS prove it.
> 
> Not. Required.


Yup...you have to consider how the "may" is emphasized. They are not saying "You CAN be legally denied access", they are saying "Somebody might not permit you to enter" (aka, they don't know what the crap they're doing).

If the team IS denied access, it can be a whole bunch of legal hurt for the offending party.



> It is my opinion that identifying service dogs easily will be safer for the public and for those in need of the dogs


Your opinion, yes...and to those of us that actually HAVE these dogs...well, we consider your opinion invalid. You wouldn't have to deal with the crap of being stopped *every single place you went* to be ID'd. You could enter a store and be on your merry little way.

There's no consequence to you at all!


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

Sophie's Mum said:


> Opinions are for everyone here I thought. I mean no disrespect for those who are disabled, but my opinion matters just as much as everyone else's. It is my opinion that identifying service dogs easily will be safer for the public and for those in need of the dogs.


Everyone is entitled to an opinon, I have lots of them. But when it stomps on someone elses right to be not discrimated against your opinons dont count and shouldnt be.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

I went looking for further source.

This is the actual law.



> http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=S07P5.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779737895


The "may be denied" and "helps" is the person's interpretation. It is not wrong.

The ID card is proof the dog is a service dog IN ABSENCE OF other evidence.

They are not required at all to have it.

Other evidence is the same as here. That the dog must perform tasks which remedy a disability.

So basically, Canada's law is identical to our current law.



> Yup...you have to consider how the "may" is emphasized. They are not saying "You CAN be legally denied access", they are saying "Somebody might not permit you to enter" (aka, they don't know what the crap they're doing).
> 
> If the team IS denied access, it can be a whole bunch of legal hurt for the offending party.


Correct. They are not legally allowed to deny a service dog access to an establishment. If a problem arises (the dog bites someone, causes destruction, is ill-behaved) the person can present the paper proving the dog is a service dog, OR demostrate the tasks the dog is capable of to prove it's a service dog.

They are NOT legally allowed to mandate ID at all.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Everyone is entitled to an opinon, I have lots of them. But when it stomps on someone elses right to be discrimated against your opinons dont count and shouldnt be.


I think you mean not to be discriminated against  But I totally understood what you meant ^_^


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

Xeph said:


> I think you mean not to be discriminated against  But I totally understood what you meant ^_^


I changed it after it was posted and I re-read it LOL


----------



## Smithcat (Aug 30, 2008)

Sophie's Mum said:


> It is my opinion that identifying service dogs easily will be safer for the public and for those in need of the dogs.


Safer for the public? In what manner? Could you elaborate on this?

I really am not that interested in "safer for the public", as I have my hands full now just trying to keep my wifes Guide safe *FROM* the public (and their uncontrolled dogs). One of the many reasons I carry pepper spray and a stun rod when we go places.


----------



## Sophie's Mum (Jan 24, 2009)

Smithcat said:


> Safer for the public? In what manner? Could you elaborate on this?
> 
> I really am not that interested in "safer for the public", as I have my hands full now just trying to keep my wifes Guide safe *FROM* the public (and their uncontrolled dogs). One of the many reasons I carry pepper spray and a stun rod when we go places.


Exactly what I mean, the public has taken advantage of the loopholes. It's a sad situation when a guide dog or service dog has to be protected from uncontrolled dogs. 

The rules now allow everyone and their dog (literally) to take advantage of the situation. It's bad enough to have to be ready for dogs on public sidewalks but to have the potential to have to deal with this type of stuff inside a place of business where the service dog should be safe? This makes me angry and upset. 

To me, it's like if we don't get caught we're not breaking the law... um yeah you are! You're putting service dogs and their owners in jeopardy by just being there. This is what has me in such a tiff. Nobody wants to change things so that the dogs can be safe while working at least, because it might inconvenience them to put easily identifiable gear on their dog.

No it won't stop all the fakers, proof is in the articles I submitted, but, if the dogs are allowed to go "naked" what stops someone from taking advantage of it "just this once"? A couple of questions IF the store isn't fearful of offending someone? I don't think so. Once that person gets away with it once, what prevents him from doing it again?


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

Sophie's Mum said:


> Exactly what I mean, the public has taken advantage of the loopholes. It's a sad situation when a guide dog or service dog has to be protected from uncontrolled dogs.
> 
> The rules now allow everyone and their dog (literally) to take advantage of the situation. It's bad enough to have to be ready for dogs on public sidewalks but to have the potential to have to deal with this type of stuff inside a place of business where the service dog should be safe? This makes me angry and upset.
> 
> ...


But how does any of this affect you and your daily life?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> This makes me angry and upset.


Yes...it makes you angry and upset. You that doesn't have the service dog. The rest of us are ok with it.

Strauss is more likely to be attacked when taking a walk (which has happened more than once >.<) than he is inside a store. We are quite often the ONLY team in the store at any given time. I have only seen one other team in the same place at the same time, and the dog was still in training.

Somehow my dog has managed not to be accosted 

Nobody wants to change things because our dogs are plenty safe. The only ones that want to change things are the abled people.

All the things you say cite inconveniences for you that "could be rectified" if our dogs were required to wear identification.

Your last argument is weak, because "What stops someone from taking their unvaccinated or aggressive dog to the dog park?" Most often the answer is nothing. It's "use at your own risk".

If a person gets away with it once, they get away with it once. Doesn't mean it will happen again, and it doesn't mean they won't get caught.

Strauss and I are in jeopardy every day whether he wears his vest or not. Taking off his vest or putting it on *does not reduce the chances of our being injured*.

Strauss wearing his vest does not mean he is immune to being stepped on. Strauss wearing his vest does not mean he's immune to being bitten or biting somebody else (the likelihood of him doing this is EXTREMELY low, but he IS a dog). Strauss wearing his vest does not mean he's immune to scrutiny. If anything, people scrutinize more BECAUSE of his vest.

You seem to think that there are dozens of service dog teams in a store at once, and this just...well it's not true! Even when I was in a crowded mall in New Jersey, there MAY have been another service dog team somewhere, but I sure as heck didn't see 'em! And that place was huge!


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Sophie's Mum said:


> Exactly what I mean, the public has taken advantage of the loopholes. It's a sad situation when a guide dog or service dog has to be protected from uncontrolled dogs.
> 
> The rules now allow everyone and their dog (literally) to take advantage of the situation. It's bad enough to have to be ready for dogs on public sidewalks but to have the potential to have to deal with this type of stuff inside a place of business where the service dog should be safe? This makes me angry and upset.
> 
> ...


Again, those are NOT LOOPHOLES!!!

If someone robs a bank and gets away with it, is that a loophole??? No! It's still a crime!!

If I dress up as a police officer, harass someone while impersonating a police officer, and write them a fake (but legit looking) ticket, and leave to get away with it. Is this a loophole in police laws? NO! This is a crime!

A person who impersonates a service dog and gets away with it is not taking advantage of a loophole! They are commiting a crime!!

People scared of asking a couple questions are giong to be fearful of checking an dog tag to make sure it's genuine too!

Smithcat has had more attacks than most people I know, but for the most part, I hardly ever see a service dog impersonator in a store at the same time as me! This is like... once a month thing. And in that once a month, most of the time it's a legit service dog!

You are not protecting us from other people! As smithcat told you, he is perfectly capable of protecting himself!

Again, it is EASY TO CATCH SOMEONE BREAKING the current laws! If their dog is acting unruly, REPORT THEM! If a police officer sees a unruly dog, they report them too! 

Understand? No loopholes. Just breaking the law. There's nothing in the world that prevents anyone from breaking the law. I could get up and go murder someone today, what's preventing me from doing that? Nothing! If i get away with it, what's stopping me from doing it again? Nothing! If I get caught, I go to jail for life.

There's nothing preventing anyone from impersonating a guide dog. If they get away with it, what stops them from doing it again? nothing. if they get caught, there's a huge fine and jail time!

Are you saying you think there should be stricter regulations to prevent service dog access than to prevent murder????


----------



## KarenJG (Jan 31, 2010)

Ayanla said:


> What is it that bothers you so much? Is it just the fact that some people are getting away with something?


I confess, it's what bothers ME so much! I hate seeing cheaters get away with it. But some of the "solutions" proposed here sound worse than the problem, so I guess I'll just have to stew in my own indignation. Although I was very pleased to learn that one of the "allowed" questions is "what tasks does this service animal perform?" because I think that goes a long way toward outing the fakers.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> so I guess I'll just have to stew in my own indignation


I just wanted to say how much I love the word indignation. You know what else is a great word? Lassitude.


----------



## Ayanla (Jun 11, 2009)

I think the questions I would like to know the answers to are:

1. How does mandatory tagging/licensing prevent someone from obtaining those things falsely? It's been my general experience that those who wish to break the rules, will do so, even if you make the rules more strict.

2. Do the benefits of having an official, and mandatory, tagging/licensing method outweigh the drawbacks of instituting said method for those who would actually be bound by it?

3. Is the current situation really in need of changing? IE is there really an epidemic of fake service animals invading local establishments with poorly trained animals who pose a nuisance and/or danger to others?


----------



## Sophie's Mum (Jan 24, 2009)

RBark said:


> Are you saying you think there should be stricter regulations to prevent service dog access than to prevent murder????


Absolutely not what I'm saying. How does a vest or collar or leash prevent service dog access? It does prevent more fakers from faking it though, not all, as I've said, but at least fewer.


So, what you're saying is that with your naked dog, you get bothered by personel less often than if you had a special harness or leash? Usually, people who work in hospitals, wearing coats or a laniard with their ID get a quick glance and then they're ignored... didn't realize how different it is with dogs.

Apparently we're beating a dead horse here. I guess the few who are disabled in California, who have to deal with those faker dogs should just fall between the cracks.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> It does prevent more fakers from faking it though, not all, as I've said, but at least fewer.


No it doesn't! You can get all those things online with no hassle!



> So, what you're saying is that with your naked dog, you get bothered by personel less often than if you had a special harness or leash?


I do believe this was explained 3 or 4 pages ago.



> I guess the few who are disabled in California, who have to deal with those faker dogs should just fall between the cracks.


I know you're trying to be facetious, but please....we are all over the country...all over the world. We deal with it everywhere and the majority of us...well, we have no/very very few issues with running into imposters.


----------



## KarenJG (Jan 31, 2010)

Xeph said:


> I just wanted to say how much I love the word indignation. You know what else is a great word? Lassitude.


Yeah, but I have too much attitude to indulge in lassitude!


----------



## k9waggingtails (May 21, 2007)

Sophie's Mum said:


> Absolutely not what I'm saying. How does a vest or collar or leash prevent service dog access? It does prevent more fakers from faking it though, not all, as I've said, but at least fewer.
> 
> So, what you're saying is that with your naked dog, you get bothered by personel less often than if you had a special harness or leash? Usually, people who work in hospitals, wearing coats or a laniard with their ID get a quick glance and then they're ignored... didn't realize how different it is with dogs.


Most SD handlers DO use a vest or harness, depending on what their dog is trained to do. The people who don't are in the minority, but they are allowed to have the choice to dress their dog or not.

What's more, there have been times when I've gone out and not bothered to grab my dog's harness (usually because we're just running to a drive-thru) and ended up having to run into a convenience store. In these circumstances, my dog leash-guides. We're rarely questioned (in or out of harness) because my dog is well-trained and well-behaved, and acts in a professional manner.



> Apparently we're beating a dead horse here. I guess the few who are disabled in California, who have to deal with those faker dogs should just fall between the cracks.


Whaaaaaaaaaat?! You're in CANADA and you're not part of the SD community. Nobody that I know of on this thread is a SD user from California that has complained about fakers. Where did this little tidbit come from?


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

Sophie's Mum said:


> Apparently we're beating a dead horse here. I guess the few who are disabled in California, who have to deal with those faker dogs should just fall between the cracks.


As was stated many pages ago and probably a few since, it should be up to those disabled who have to deal with those faker dogs to decided what/if anything should be done and apparently from reading and following this whole thread, those faker dogs are far less of a problem than people trying to decided whats best for the disabled when they have no idea what its even like to live a day in their life.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> What's more, there have been times when I've gone out and not bothered to grab my dog's harness (usually because we're just running to a drive-thru) and ended up having to run into a convenience store.


Or, you know, we're stuck at a Firestone and our dogs' equipment is stuck in the car which is on a lift.

It happens....


----------



## k9waggingtails (May 21, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Or, you know, we're stuck at a Firestone and our dogs' equipment is stuck in the car which is on a lift.
> 
> It happens....


Oh god, yeah. That was awful!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I don't think Delphi was happy about it either...although when they finally lowered the van she was just kinda staring out at us with her paws crossed like, "You know, I really find this to be quite unacceptable. I am a LADY and you took those ruffians out instead! How dare you!!"


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

In thinking about this whole thing, just how much can anybody do in out society any more without training or certification? You do have to have a diagnosis from a doctor that you are impaired? But then with no training at all, you can train a dog, decide it is ready to go in public places all on your own? 

The dog guide school, that we volunteer for, once the dog is trained gives their partners up to a month of training. Those that have had a dog before may be ready to go home in 2 weeks. The assistance dog school we have raised puppies for does it differently. Since they train dogs for a wide variety of needs, a class wouldn't make sense. They deliver the trained dog and let it acclimate to the home. Then the field trainer comes and starts training the person to use the dog. The dog also needs to learn to work with the person. Once the team is functioning well, the trainer certifies them. The trainer continues to be available for any help needed. The team also must be recertified I think every year. I don't think other schools do the recertification. 

How about the learning curve for self trained dogs and their partners? How many ''Whoopes'' does the public have to put up with? 

I am not just one more person that has raised a few foster puppies. I have had specific training in promoting the dog guide school. I also have worked with the assistance dog school too. When the one lady with a working dog was having some issues with it, the field trainer set up a training session at my home. My role was mainbly providing a distraction. My wife and I are seen as resource people in the community for service dogs. When a service dog was being harassed by highschool students, we provided the administration with a copy of the state law on it. Our friend had her dog guide at the grocery store. Somebody complained to the staff that she could see. Well a little bit. Later, my wife came in with our puppy and the staff asked her about it. She was able to explain that anybody legally blind, 20/200 or worse could have a dog guide. 90% of those have some vision. There was an advocacy group I used to be a part of that met in the basement of the library. The staff asked me how they would handle the one lady in a wheel chair if there was a fire. In that case, my answer was that they should ask her. 

So I say people need to get over it, get certified like you have to do for everything else, get some ID, a tag for your dog, and be ready to show it. After all, many people don't choose to have a dog as an accommodation. If you do, be ready to cooperate a little.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Sorry, but I still maintain that it is my right not to be stopped every time I enter a place of business to be "carded". I want to continue on my way just like everybody else.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Sophie's Mum said:


> Absolutely not what I'm saying. How does a vest or collar or leash prevent service dog access? It does prevent more fakers from faking it though, not all, as I've said, but at least fewer.


No it does not. You have absolutely no evidence of that.



> So, what you're saying is that with your naked dog, you get bothered by personel less often than if you had a special harness or leash? Usually, people who work in hospitals, wearing coats or a laniard with their ID get a quick glance and then they're ignored... didn't realize how different it is with dogs.


I've said it a lot, so has Xeph. Xeph has her dog in a harness because it makes her more approachable. I have my dog out of harness because it makes me less approachable. When I was working on socializing Priscilla, I would put a harness on her when I *WANTED* people to interact with her. It was a excellent training opportunity that way. But if I was not training, I would just go about my own business.



> Apparently we're beating a dead horse here. I guess the few who are disabled in California, who have to deal with those faker dogs should just fall between the cracks.


Wrong, absolutely wrong. First of all, I live in California and had a service dog in California. Second of all, we have the most relaxed laws regarding service dogs in the country. Do you know why? Because the DISABLED people WANTED less regulation. Those few people you said that "fell through the cracks"? I read the article, they did not fall through the cracks. The person who wrote both articles did not KNOW ANYTHING about current service dog laws.

Again, I live in CA, and I hardly EVER see faker service dogs. And I live in the biggest city in CA, so don't give me any excuses about that. They are not an epidemic, you just think it is even though 1) you never had a service dog 2) you know nothing about service dogs 3) I know more about Canada's service dogs law than you do and i dont live there 4) you know nothing about the state of fakers 5) you know nothing about the current regulations in place already and on and on and on.

Those handlers with bad dogs in the article would go to jail and be fined if someone was smart enough to complain about it!!! They have the right to do that already!!!



k9waggingtails said:


> Whaaaaaaaaaat?! You're in CANADA and you're not part of the SD community. Nobody that I know of on this thread is a SD user from California that has complained about fakers. Where did this little tidbit come from?






misty073 said:


> As was stated many pages ago and probably a few since, it should be up to those disabled who have to deal with those faker dogs to decided what/if anything should be done and apparently from reading and following this whole thread, those faker dogs are far less of a problem than people trying to decided whats best for the disabled when they have no idea what its even like to live a day in their life.


Thanks!! That's correct.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Labsnothers said:


> So I say people need to get over it, get certified like you have to do for everything else, get some ID, a tag for your dog, and be ready to show it. After all, many people don't choose to have a dog as an accommodation. If you do, be ready to cooperate a little.


No, you need to get over it. You will never have a say in the ADA. That is the majority rule, sucks don't it?!


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

RBark said:


> Thanks!! That's correct.



I didnt understand at the begining of this thread why it was such a big deal. To me it seemed like a great idea to have tags or vests on dogs, but now I do understand. What I dont get is why it is taking 12 pages and others still dont get it and even worse why are they arguing a fact that really has nothing to do with them?


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

RBark said:


> No, you need to get over it. You will never have a say in the ADA. That is the majority rule, sucks don't it?!


Yes, the majority does rule and that is why the current fiasco will be changed.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Labsnothers said:


> Yes, the majority does rule and that is why the current fiasco will be changed.


There is no current fiasco, and the majority rule says there won't be more regulation in regards to forcing more ID. They will clarify definitions, they will clarify the situation in regards to Emotional Support Dogs and Psycharitic Support Dogs, and so on. They will clarify what a service dog is.

They will not make ID's mandatory, no matter how much you want to enforce that on us.

Nobody important would dare touch that issue with a pole a thousand miles long. All it would take is a public outcry likening it to the Jewish having to wear the yellow star of david and Politicans will run for the hills.

It just simply, will never happen. Anybody stupid enough to think it might happen is never going to have a career in politics.


----------



## Bones (Sep 11, 2009)

RBark said:


> There is no current fiasco, and the majority rule says there won't be more regulation in regards to forcing more ID. They will clarify definitions, they will clarify the situation in regards to Emotional Support Dogs and Psycharitic Support Dogs, and so on. They will clarify what a service dog is.
> 
> They will not make ID's mandatory, no matter how much you want to enforce that on us.
> 
> ...


It really depends on the where, the how, and the why  I generally think some manner or method of identifying legitimate service dogs would be beneficial. I don't see it as a form of discrimination personally. As a person with epilepsy I have to fill out forms and have my neurologist fill out forms every other year that I take my medications along with an update on the status of my condition to keep my drivers license. Why? A public safety concern. I think the same would apply if some knucklehead were allowed to bring their untrained 'service' animal to the grocery store. Maybe I don't 'get' it but I don't see what the big deal would be to have a system in place to confirm legitimate service animals.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Bones said:


> It really depends on the where, the how, and the why  I generally think some manner or method of identifying legitimate service dogs would be beneficial. I don't see it as a form of discrimination personally. As a person with epilepsy I have to fill out forms and have my neurologist fill out forms every other year that I take my medications along with an update on the status of my condition to keep my drivers license. Why? A public safety concern. I think the same would apply if some knucklehead were allowed to bring their untrained 'service' animal to the grocery store. Maybe I don't 'get' it but I don't see what the big deal would be to have a system in place to confirm legitimate service animals.


Sorry but, please read the thread. It's been answered a hundred times.

There is already a method of identifying a legitimate service dog.

Also Labsnothers, I just did some research.

IAADP, CCI, Delta Society, and ADI all have opposed various attempts at requiring ID's for service dogs. Looks like your own CCI group doesn't agree with you either.

Sorry to disappoint!

P.S. They won all the cases of people trying to take our rights away. Go go majority rule!

P.P.S. More research shows that the AKC and APDT are also against it. It's fortunate for all of us that good men prevail!

Public statement written by the IAADP, and sponspored by the AKC, APDT, CCI, and ADI:



> Assistance dog partners have been faced with discrimination because of our dogs. It is these shared experiences that have helped bring us together as a community with common causes and common grievances. Many of us begin by becoming advocates for our dogs, then advocates for ourselves, then advocates for others. Being challenged by those in authority who would deny our legal rights is not pleasant. Rather than having our dogs certified, let's work together toward making our society one in which assistance dog teams are welcomed and incorporated into the larger society.


----------



## Bones (Sep 11, 2009)

RBark said:


> Sorry but, please read the thread. It's been answered a hundred times.
> 
> There is already a method of identifying a legitimate service dog.
> 
> ...


I did read and the method just seems too vague- easily dodged but I don't have a horse in this race so I'll just leave my ten cents on the table.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Bones said:


> I did read and the method just seems too vague- easily dodged but I don't have a horse in this race so I'll just leave my ten cents on the table.


Yes I understand why abled people think like that. Most abled people have never experienced discrimination, injustice, and the horrors of being considered sub-human by society. Yes, it's understandable that they care more about punishing people than helping people.

But as they say, the path to hell is paved in good intentions. There are people who mean well by that, but that is only because they are not the ones who have to deal with the ramifications.


----------



## Bones (Sep 11, 2009)

RBark said:


> Yes I understand why abled people think like that. Most abled people have never experienced discrimination, injustice, and the horrors of being considered sub-human by society. Yes, it's understandable that they care more about punishing people than helping people.
> 
> But as they say, the path to hell is paved in good intentions. There are people who mean well by that, but that is only because they are not the ones who have to deal with the ramifications.


*sigh* I get the whole 'walk a mile in their shoes' thing but this argumentum ad misericordiam is laying it on a bit thick. There is sadly a whole lot of discrimination and injustice in this world.

But anyways, I'm glad people who need assistance have it with service animals. Its a shame a minority of people exploit that opportunity though.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> But anyways, I'm glad people who need assistance have it with service animals. Its a shame a minority of people exploit that opportunity though.


Yes it is.


----------



## Smithcat (Aug 30, 2008)

Labsnothers said:


> So I say people need to get over it, get certified like you have to do for everything else, get some ID, a tag for your dog, and be ready to show it. After all, many people don't choose to have a dog as an accommodation. If you do, be ready to cooperate a little.


I believe that you are operating from a misconception here.

Your statement: " Get certified like you have to do for everything else, get some ID, a tag for your dog, and be ready to show it.", implies that you believe everything we do is somehow a privilege granted by the government.

In our free society, citizens have the* right* (not privilege) to travel where they want, when they want and how they want.(Except for operating a motor vehicle.....that one IS a privilege.) I do not have to "show my papers" to enter WalMart, to shop at the grocery store, or to simply walk down the street. Neither should my wife, when she is accompanied by her Guide, doing the exact same tasks.

When you say "get certified, get ID, be ready to show it" et al, you are essentially saying that the disabled are second class citizens who should not enjoy the same rights as the "normal" population. You are stating that the disabled need the government to decide that the disabled can do what the "normal" population do....but only after they have submitted themselves to some kind of "certifying authority" which will decide whether or not they are deserving enough to take their place amongst regular society, and to do the common things that folks do everyday. *HOGWASH!* My wife (and ALL disabled citizens who use service animals) has the *right *(not privilege) to be accompanied by her Guide and go wherever any "normally" sighted person can go, just as you and I do, with no questions asked. The government cannot keep her from doing so (nor should it ever need to be that way) because she did not "show her papers", "ID", "certification", "license", or "permission slip".

To advocate having to present such "proof" is absurd, and with the attitude you have demonstrated here concerning this subject, I would seriously question whether or not your continuing to be involved with service dogs in any kind of capacity would be beneficial for anyone. 

It is obvious that you have never had to "walk the walk". I urge you to re-examine your stance in this area of concern.


----------



## Smithcat (Aug 30, 2008)

Bones said:


> As a person with epilepsy I have to fill out forms and have my neurologist fill out forms every other year that I take my medications along with an update on the status of my condition to keep my drivers license. Why? A public safety concern.


Ahhh....but, you see, driving IS a privilege granted by the government.
Being a disabled service dog user able to go about your business just like everyone else without having to "show yo papiss, please, Ja?" is not a privilege. It is a right. The situations are not anywhere near comparison.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Should we quit requiring identification to use handicap parking?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Labsnothers said:


> Should we quit requiring identification to use handicap parking?


We?

No. Not we. As mentioned, driving is a privilege, not a right. I have faith that the handicapped can decide for themselves whether they want handicapped parking or not.


----------



## Smithcat (Aug 30, 2008)

Labsnothers said:


> Should we quit requiring identification to use handicap parking?


Once again, not even an equal comparison.

Driving is not a "right", but a privilege granted by the government after one has shown that one can safely and properly operate a vehicle. No one has the "right" to drive...not the disabled, nor the able bodied.

Being able to utilize the public venue the same as an able-bodied person is a right that cannot be denied by the government. Everyone has the "right" to the use of the public venue, be they able bodied or disabled.

It seems that the concept of "rights" versus "government granted privilege" is being confused quite frequently. Did everyone flunk out of or fall asleep in their Constitutional Government classes in school? This stuff is pretty basic.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I would seriously question whether or not your continuing to be involved with service dogs in any kind of capacity would be beneficial for anyone.


I agree! Those that help to train assistance dogs should be on the side of the disabled, not pushing for laws that make things harder for them.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> I agree! Those that help to train assistance dogs should be on the side of the disabled, not pushing for laws that make things harder for them.


Well, to be fair, the puppies are unlikely to inherit the biases of it's handler 

Thank god for their innocence


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

I do favor the great majority of people needing dogs. It is really too bad the community has to fight the irresponsible few.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I do favor the great majority of people needing dogs. It is really too bad the community has to fight the irresponsible few.


I would prefer to fight the irresponsible with the help of my community instead of the government telling me what I must show to access an area readily available to others.


----------



## pamperedpups (Dec 7, 2006)

Here's something to consider: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/dog_killed_by_another_dog_on_t.html


----------



## GypsyJazmine (Nov 27, 2009)

I am disabled...& I ask why it is so hard to show some kind of organized proof that a S.D. is legit?
This would solve so many problems with them & the general attitude of the public that does not believe...Labs is right on this one...Push & the public will push back harder...There must be an acceptable compromise.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Clarification (I use differing pronouns simply for ease of reference): 

A woman enters a store with a small dog. The store owner asks, "Is that a service dog?" The woman answers yes. The store owner then asks, "What is he trained to assist you with?" (Or what is his function, etc.) The woman lists two or three things and they go and shop.

A man enters a store with a small dog. The store owner asks, "Is that a service dog?" The man answers yes. The store owner then asks, "What is he trained to assist you with?" (Or what is his function, etc.) The man says the dog only provides emotional support and is not trained in any specific function.

Is the shop owner allowed to deny enterance to the man's dog on the grounds that it is impersonating a service dog and is not actually one itself? If the dog is otherwise behaving but is simply a well trained pet, are those two questions enough to deduce the fraud, and if so, is the store owner allowed to do anything about it?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

pamperedpups said:


> Here's something to consider: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/dog_killed_by_another_dog_on_t.html


That was already considered, noted, and stored away where it should be. The exception, not the rule. 



GypsyJazmine said:


> I am disabled...& I ask why it is so hard to show some kind of organized proof that a S.D. is legit?
> This would solve so many problems with them & the general attitude of the public that does not believe...Labs is right on this one...Push & the public will push back harder...There must be an acceptable compromise.


The public is NOT pushing! I'm not sure where anyone is getting the idea that the public is pushing???? The last time anyone tried to require certification was in 1991. Where is this pushing going on?

There is proof that a SD is legitimate already. Why it's hard to show proof has been discussed in massive depth throughout this thread. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask, there's a ton of info on why already in this thread.

Just because YOU are okay with showing ID, doesn't mean EVERYONE is. As a disabled person, you should be protecting the rights of your fellow person, not forefeiting it to stroke the egos of those who are abled.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

RaeganW said:


> Clarification (I use differing pronouns simply for ease of reference):
> 
> A woman enters a store with a small dog. The store owner asks, "Is that a service dog?" The woman answers yes. The store owner then asks, "What is he trained to assist you with?" (Or what is his function, etc.) The woman lists two or three things and they go and shop.
> 
> ...


Yes, ESA's are not allowed public access. The owner can absolutely deny access and report fraud.


----------



## GypsyJazmine (Nov 27, 2009)

RBark said:


> That was already considered, noted, and stored away where it should be. The exception, not the rule.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As a disabled person I want people like me to be recognized & supported & not looked at with suspicion & questioned.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

GypsyJazmine said:


> As a disabled person I want people like me to be recognized & supported & not looked at with suspicion & questioned.


Do you even have a service dog???

When Priscilla, my GSD SDIT, had her vest on, she got approached, questioned, harassed constantly by the general public.

When I did not have her vest on, people would look, but ignore me and her because she did not seem approachable without her vest on.

As disabled people, we should have the option to do both! When I'm in public, I don't want people harassing me constantly! I want people to leave me alone like they leave everyone else in the store alone. Having my dog naked helps in that end.

Nobody questioned me either. I might get stopped at the entrance and asked if she's a service animal, and I say yes. Then I enter and nobody bothers me the rest of my trip.

YES you should absolutely be recognized and supported. ID's are NOT the way. Requiring ID's is the same as recognizing you as a second class citizen with less rights than abled people.

The way to get people to recognize and support you is to EDUCATE, and raise our children to learn about acceptance. Educate people on their rights on service dogs, and teach them to accept the disabled as equals.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Yeah...Strauss and I got harrassed at Walmart tonight, and because of lack of supervision, a child got yelled at (by me). We get bothered enough as it is without having to prove our right to enter an establishment.

And as was mentioned before, what happens when my legitimate SD and I are refused entry because our ID "might be fake"? What recourse do I have?


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

pamperedpups said:


> Here's something to consider: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/dog_killed_by_another_dog_on_t.html


According to FL State Statues, the owner of the dog who killed the SD would go to jail AND pay a $10,000 fine.


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

Smithcat said:


> I would seriously question whether or not your continuing to be involved with service dogs in any kind of capacity would be beneficial for anyone.


The handicapped have the same right to be unreasonable and counter productive as anybody else. Fortunately very few of them exercise it.


----------



## Ocsi (Oct 11, 2009)

ipreferpi said:


> He'll frequently eliminate in the store, which would be no big deal, except she's calling him a service dog, and bringing him into stores and restaurants.


just as an FYI, this would totally disqualify him as a service animal
a service animal is NOT allowed to eliminate while working indoors, its handler should take the dog outside to do this.


----------



## Ocsi (Oct 11, 2009)

RBark said:


> No, the store can not call the police to verify. If he store did call the police, the police would come to you and ask "Is this a service dog?" And once you said yes, the situation would be over and the store would get their hand slapped or even fined for calling the police unnecessarily.
> 
> As for the sense of it... you are looking at it from the perspective of someone who is not disabled.
> 
> ...


RBark thank you for sharing so much in this thread, it has been very helpful
I have a registered therapy dog- but I don't think its the same as a service dog; although I do take him into stores with me that I KNOW are pet friendly... take a look at what happened to me at Blockbuster though, mind you we had been shopping there together for at least a year and a half but since a "new manager" came I guess things are different?

We were asked about 4 months ago to leave the store at Blockbuster and the girl behind the counter threatened to call the police- I think there was something really wrong with this girl! She looked like she thought my sweet little poodle was going to bit someone (I could see fear mixed with an adrelinaly rush in her eyes.) She said the manager had changed, but had no way to verify it at the time. I left, pissed b/c I didn't have Ocsi's id with me- which I would have gladly shown to the officer and explain that we had come to this store so many times in the passed. 
I of course was totally mortified that she spoke to me that way and just left, it was such an embarrassing situation. 

I really was so pissed! Because as I said I had been taking my dog to that store with me for nearly 15 months with no issues. I soon as I got home I canceled my BB subscription and switched over to Netflix.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

GypsyJazmine said:


> I am disabled...& I ask why it is so hard to show some kind of organized proof that a S.D. is legit?
> This would solve so many problems with them & the general attitude of the public that does not believe...Labs is right on this one...Push & the public will push back harder...There must be an acceptable compromise.


Who else has to prove they can enter a public area? Do you have to show ID to go into Walmart, or a movie?

A person with a well mannered dog who does not create any disturbance should be allowed to enter with their dog without being accosted or asked for "proof". By the same token, any person with an apparent service dog who DOES create a disturbance should be asked to leave.

Thank heavens for the ADA.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Labsnothers said:


> The handicapped have the same right to be unreasonable and counter productive as anybody else. Fortunately very few of them exercise it.


Unreasonable? Are you kidding?

Again. Driving is a PRIVILEGE.

Public Access is a RIGHT.

Those can not be compared in any way whatsoever.

Do YOU have to be harassed before you enter a store?

So why should I????? Anyone who thinks I should be, clearly thinks I am a sub-human, and clearly should have no voice in anything related to our free and progressive country.

Fortunately, very few of the abled are being unreasonable like you. You loooooove to use your CCI group as a example everyone should learn from in almost everything else. But CCI is 10000% against mandatory certification.

The only unreasonable people here are you. It is completely unreasonable to treat me like a second-class citizen just because of my disability!

To sum it up. Driving: Privilege. Public Access: Right. Handicapped Parking =/= Public Access RIGHTS. Comparision invalid.


----------



## Ayanla (Jun 11, 2009)

No one, ever, under any circumstance whatsoever, should be required to have papers, a license, tag, identification or anything of that nature to walk into a building unless identification is required for all persons entering the building as in the case of a secure facility etc.

Laws are primarily punitive in the sense that someone who's going to break the law isn't going to reconsider just because the law is there. There is already a law against taking a non-service animal into establishments. That law is already being ignored. 

Let's look at a couple scenarios:

Currently:


> Jill uses a service dog to assist in daily tasks. She is able to to go about her life freely and with minimal interference, as the law protects her from harassment and being barred entry. If someone were to deny her entry, the company would face a stiff penalty.
> 
> Joe pretends his pet dog is a service dog. He faces little resistance at establishments until his dog gets aggressive at the local grocery store and he's asked to leave. He could complain, but the law isn't on his side as it's legal to deny entry to even a service dog that isn't behaved and under control
> 
> Jackie also pretends her pet dog is a service dog. Unlike Joe's dog, though, her pooch is well behaved despite not actually performing any service tasks. She takes him with her everywhere and never has an issue and no one is bothered.


With mandatory id



> Jill gets asked for her dog's ID, the one she was forced to buy after waiting 4-6 weeks for processing, at the majority of places. On many occasions she has to wait while they inspect the ID for validity and compare it to the copy the government provided to them, which adds extra time and hassle to her day, and makes her feel like a second class citizen who has to prove her right to go grocery shopping. Sometimes she encounters a particularly stubborn employee who refuses to accept the ID as valid and prevents her from bringing in her dog. Legally she has no recourse, as the employee claims her ID appeared fraudulent and a mandatory ID law gives them the right to make judgment calls. There are also times when she doesn't have her ID for whatever reason and is unable to enter any establishment until she retrieves it. There was also that time when she lost her ID and it took a week to get a new one, where she was forced to have other people do things for her.
> 
> Joe manages to get his dog an ID either by convincing a doctor to certify him or by buying a fraudulent copy. He gets the same hassles as Jill, but he doesn't care because it lets him take his dog in legally most places and that's all he wanted to start with. His dog is still aggressive, and he still occasionally gets asked to leave, but again, he doesn't care.
> 
> Jackie decides to not take her dog since she can't get legal proof he's a service dog and she doesn't want to be arrested for not having ID.


Who is most inconvenienced by the mandatory licensing? Not Joe, who was already a self involved jerk who didn't care what others think or what punishment the law held. Not Jackie, who simply can't take the dog anymore and doesn't really mind. Why look, it's Jill, the one person who legitimately needs and deserves to take her service dog with her and not be harassed.

Who's protected by the mandatory licensing? No one. Joe's dog is still out there being aggressive. Jackie's dog was never a problem to start with. Jill's dog was never a problem to start with.

Hmm, then who benefits from this idea? Well, the government who makes the licenses. The people they hire to issue them. The body that enforces them. The employees who can no longer be punished for being discriminatory. The companies that can no longer be punished for having discriminatory employees.

More laws don't prevent determined people from breaking laws already on the books. If a proposed new law has little to no actual benefit, while having a significant drawback to those not breaking said law, it should be pretty obvious that it shouldn't be put into effect.

Now, if you'd like to talk about stiffening sentences for those caught breaking the laws already on the books, then that would make sense. What some of you are talking about is punishing the legitimately disabled in a misguided attempt to stop the lawbreakers.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

In reviewing this thread it seems to me the problem lies in denying dogs access regardeless of whether or not that are SD's. 

A friend of mine in the UK was astonished that we could not, at least in NY, bring our dogs in restaurants and other business establishments. He lives in a rural area.. small town and the like.. not in London so I do not know if this is locally accepted or not. He says at the local pub there are a few regulars who bring their dogs in and the pub prepares meals as well as serves up Ale etc. 

Tell me this.. if the laws were changed, so that ANY well behaved dogs could come into (most) business establishments with their owners, and any badly behaved dogs were expelled (aggressive, noisey or non housebroken etc.), what would be the issue? 

IMO instead of adding a regulation for SD's or people with disabilities, why not REDUCE the laws over all? Apparently they have in other parts of the world (and I have not checked this out.. so it is here say). This would eliminate the need for anyone to be labeled and it would be CLEAR that a badly behaved dog and owner could be told to leave regardless of the dog's status as either a pet or a service animal. 

As to health laws.. and restaurants.. I have seen humans in restaurants that are a lot less 'clean' than a lot of dogs.. so I never got that.. and if dogs ARE allowed in restaurants in other parts of the world and no one dies of deadly disease from that practice, why do we have this law in the US?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Various reasons for that, Elana. There are people who are allergic to dogs and/or afraid of dogs.

When I lived in Santa Cruz, most of the restaurants allowed dogs in their outdoor sections.

They are also allowed in most stores that do not sell food.


----------



## Smithcat (Aug 30, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> Tell me this.. if the laws were changed, so that ANY well behaved dogs could come into (most) business establishments with their owners, and any badly behaved dogs were expelled (aggressive, noisey or non housebroken etc.), what would be the issue?
> 
> 
> First off.......define "Well Behaved". For some, all that means is that "Fluffums" only jumps up 3 times on passers-by, will only urinate instead of defecate in the public venue, and has only bitten 2 people. To them, their dog is "well behaved" no matter what anyone else says. Lack of set standards (both human AND animal) is only part of the problem. Having more pet dogs in the public venue only increases the chances of an attack on a working service dog, and the chances of injury to their handler because most pet dog owners have no idea of what proper behavior is in a dog anyway. The majority of pet dog owners do not know how to "read" their dogs like a legitimate working service dog handler does. A working service dog is an extension of the person themself. A handler of a legitimate working service dog has had specialized training so that they KNOW what their dog is doing, how it is (and should be) acting, and what to do in various situations and circumstances that may arise. No one just walked up to a disabled person and said "Well, you are disabled. Here's your service dog!" Both the handler AND the dog have been trained in public access and the laws governing such, as well as the mitigating tasks and work that the dog does that the disabled person cannot.
> ...


----------



## Labsnothers (Oct 10, 2009)

I really had to laugh at the one time we ate out on the dock at a restaurant in Florida. They had a big, nasty ''No dogs'' sign. But there were filthy sea gulls flying around. 

I was glad we left the puppy with a friend that trip. While many motels had pets welcome signs out, many other places wire like the restaurant. I don't know where the foster puppies fall under Florida's laws. I hope people raising puppies for South East Dog Guides don't have it too bad. It was nice being off duty and not having to discuss the status of the dog. In most states they are welcome many places, but few places are required to let us in.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Smithcat, please don't get me wrong. I understand very well the stupidity of pet dog owners.. and you are far more experienced with stupid actions toward a legitiamte service dog than I. I have a competition obedience dog I take with me everywhere and I see a LOT of stupidity too. 

I am just wondering how it is handled in other countries and am wondering if less regulation (as opposed to more as being suggested by some folks here) might be an answer. Just tossing that out there to muddy the water? Of course, leaving things alone works for the most part. 

Please believe me when I say that I am totally on the side and supportive of Service dogs and those they serve. I can also understand not wanting to be labeled.. and I certainly can understand the prejudices and poor treatment those with disabilities often receive. I am not disabled but I have surely been treated poorly and discrimanted against for my gender! 

As I stated way back in this thread, as an employer I never understood WHY anyone with a disability would be excluded from employment. I don't GET that... and where I work now we have people who are hearing and vision impaired (some with service dogs) as well several folks who have learning disabilities. Many of those folks would serve as my boss if I worked in their units. 

Our in house convenience store is run by visually impaired people as are all the vending machines on all the floors. They do a really good job.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> Smithcat, please don't get me wrong. I understand very well the stupidity of pet dog owners.. and you are far more experienced with stupid actions toward a legitiamte service dog than I. I have a competition obedience dog I take with me everywhere and I see a LOT of stupidity too.
> 
> I am just wondering how it is handled in other countries and am wondering if less regulation (as opposed to more as being suggested by some folks here) might be an answer. Just tossing that out there to muddy the water? Of course, leaving things alone works for the most part.
> 
> ...


Most of the reason disabled people get excluded is fear of the unknown and ignorance.

Most people don't know anything about what a deaf man can or can not do beyond "yeah.. being deaf must suck..." They don't know how to work with a disabled person, what accommodations can be made, and so on. Furthermore, they don't WANT to, because it is "easier" to just hire an abled person.

There are a lot of records that show overall, the disabled do tend to be harder workers and more loyal workers than the abled. The reasons for that is obvious: desperation. They have very few other choices. But many people are too short sighted to see those advantages.

The only way to fix it is education. But in modern society, after all the clash between gender and racial inequality that dominated the 1900-1970's, most people WANT to believe we've moved past that. So most people bury their head in the sand and go "la la la la la the world is equal we're all equal it's all lovey dovey there's no more inequality la la la" much to the detriment of the disabled.

All that said...

I do believe that things are just fine the way they are at the moment. There's no compelling reason to relax laws governing pet dogs in stores. At least, not to me. I'd love to take Kobe out with me to stores but, it's not needed and not worth the fight.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

RBark said:


> Most of the reason disabled people get excluded is fear of the unknown and ignorance.
> 
> Most people don't know anything about what a deaf man can or can not do beyond "yeah.. being deaf must suck..." They don't know how to work with a disabled person, what accommodations can be made, and so on. Furthermore, they don't WANT to, because it is "easier" to just hire an abled person.


I never understood this because of this:



> There are a lot of records that show overall, the disabled do tend to be *harder workers and more loyal workers *than the abled. The reasons for that is obvious: desperation. They have very few other choices. But many people are too short sighted to see those advantages.


And by that they make you money. 



> The only way to fix it is education. But in modern society, after all the clash between gender and racial inequality that dominated the 1900-1970's, most people WANT to believe we've moved past that. So most people bury their head in the sand and go "la la la la la the world is equal we're all equal it's all lovey dovey there's no more inequality la la la" much to the detriment of the disabled.


I will say that when I was in a dead end job I was considering opening a Frozen Custard Franchise. I checked out some information and found out that I could get GRANTS if I set up a business with accommodations to hire people with disabilities. 

Because I knew the second part of what I quoted from you here (hrder and mor eloyal workers), I would have made the accommodations to make that happen. Hard Workers who are dedicated to doing the job well and who will work/think outside the box _make you money!_ My goodness. You do not have to be a rocket scientist in business to want employees who make you money.. and by making money we *all* benefit by having fair wages and benefits.

IF it had worked out and made money over all (I would have needed the right location etc.) I would have looked at opening a second store.. and I would had promoted someone already working for me to manage that store.. and continued the trend of hiring disabled. 

As a person who has been in business it seems a no brainer. As a person with some compassion it also seems a no brainer. Everyone would win. 



> All that said...
> 
> I do believe that things are just fine the way they are at the moment. There's no compelling reason to relax laws governing pet dogs in stores. At least, not to me. I'd love to take Kobe out with me to stores but, it's not needed and not worth the fight.


Like I said.. I just tossed it out there as another idea. Less regulation = less need for enforcement. Maybe. Smithcat pointed out why it might not work and be more need for enforcement.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

> A friend of mine in the UK was astonished that we could not, at least in NY, bring our dogs in restaurants and other business establishments. He lives in a rural area.. small town and the like.. not in London so I do not know if this is locally accepted or not. He says at the local pub there are a few regulars who bring their dogs in and the pub prepares meals as well as serves up Ale etc.


Apparently, it's common in Europe to see dogs in shops, pubs, and places to eat. A friend of mine had never seen a Standard Poodle before I got Maddy. When she came back from a month's vacation in Europe, she told me that everywhere she went in France she saw Standard Poodles (and the toy and mini as well)!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Yeah, in Europe they're everywhere. When I was in Italy and Austria, if there were people, there were dogs...usually offleash. And extremely well behaved


----------



## luvntzus (Mar 16, 2007)

I'm packing my bags and moving.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

poodleholic said:


> Apparently, it's common in Europe to see dogs in shops, pubs, and places to eat. A friend of mine had never seen a Standard Poodle before I got Maddy. When she came back from a month's vacation in Europe, she told me that everywhere she went in France she saw Standard Poodles (and the toy and mini as well)!


Standard poodles are just people with a 'Do! Anyone who has had a Poodle knows THAT.


----------



## Ocsi (Oct 11, 2009)

when I was in Europe 6 years ago, I'm not sure I saw dogs EVERYWHERE (I was in Germany and Hungary) however- leash laws must be more lax because its true, you see less dogs on leashes when you do see them in public AND when I did see a little Westie sitting under his master's chair at a sit-down full service restaurant he was EXTREMELY well behaved. had I not been the crazy 'dog radar' person I would have never noticed him b/c he didn't bark or make any fuss at all



btw- hardly ANY dogs have been spayed/ neutered in Europe, owners are more likely to buy a male dog b/c it can't have puppies
_hmm..._ is what I have always said when these issues arise 
(my 6 year old miniature poodle is not neutered and has never been allowed to breed)


----------

