# Possible Changes for Vets Under the VA



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

*The cut-off time to submit feedback is fast approaching. *

The following has only been proposed at this point. If you know someone who is a vet who is or will be using a SD please pass this info along.

VA to expand facility access to service dogs
By Patricia Kime, Staff writer
MilitaryTimes

Quote: The proposed change is more liberal than a law passed in 2012, which required VA to let in seeing eye dogs, mobility dogs and other guide dogs that have been trained and accredited by an organization that evaluates guide dogs and service dogs.

VA to expand facility access to service dogs

-----

Before the law change in 2012 only Guide Dogs were allowed on VA property. After the change Guide Dogs, Hearing Dogs (for some reason they referred to these as "other guide dogs", and Service Dogs who assisted with mobility issues. And also stuck in there was the the added --> "have been trained and accredited by an organization that evaluates guide dogs and service dogs." There wasn't anything stating who these organizations were but it wasn't long before memos, policies and internal command took this open statement and made it to conform with another regulation that was going through at about the same time frame -- one that dealt with allowances to assist with basic care of SDs of vets. This second reg. stated only two approved organizations (through a major lobbying effort) thereby the first reg. now was being piggybacked with the other. 

It was soon noticed that even with the addition of two other types of Assistance Dogs with the 2012 change, one of the largest sections of dogs being asked for were not included -- dogs trained to work with vets suffering with PTSD. If you compare this VA law with the ADA (DOJ) there is no opening for owner training. 

To participate in this window of public input you must do so before January 20.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Animals on VA Property
A Proposed Rule by the Veterans Affairs Department on 11/21/2014

This document has a comment period that ends in 18 days (01/20/2015)

ACTION Proposed Rule.


SUMMARY

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its regulation regarding the presence of animals on VA property. Current VA regulation authorizes the presence of seeing-eye dogs on VA property and other animals as authorized at the discretion of a VA facility head or designee. However, applicable Federal law authorizes the presence of guide dogs and other service animals when these animals accompany individuals with disabilities seeking admittance to buildings or property owned or operated by the Federal Government. This proposed rule would expand the current VA regulation to be consistent with applicable Federal law, and would clarify the authority of a VA facility head or designee to allow nonservice animals to be present on VA property.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/11/21/2014-27629/animals-on-va-property

-------------------------------

"Nonservice animals" ????? Is this another layer of mud in the water? Looks like they are still considering PSDs as a "nonservice animal". Dragging and muttering their way into accepting what the vets want and only if they have to?

"trained" vrs "educated" dogs? And it takes a legal degree with the assistance of a team to understand all of the sections, in compliance, subsequent, otherwise accessible, proposed revisions, pursuant to, consistent with, on the same terms and conditions, and subject to the same regulations, as generally govern, can be interpreted to allow (does this mean there is a choice in the interpretation)?

And how about the following which makes me wonder did a team actually sit down and come up with this wording or was it the work of a committee who each submitted a part of a sentence and demand it be put together as one?
"which is inconsistent with both section 3103(a) and section 109. We would therefore revise our regulation to be consistent with the requirements in section 3103(a) and section 109. We also note that these revisions would be consistent with the remainder of § 1.218 and § 1.220, as well as consistent with VA regulations that ensure accessibility for programs or activities conducted by VA, 38 CFR 15.101 et al." 

And it only gets better with: "The proposed revisions to 38 CFR 1.218(a)(11) would establish nationally applicable criteria regarding the presence of service animals on VA property, to ensure that our regulations cannot be interpreted in a manner that conflicts with section 3103(a), section 109, §§ 1.218 and 1.220, or § 15.101 et al. We note that section 3103(b) specifically authorizes the Secretary of VA to prescribe regulations that are necessary in the public interest to carry out section 3103(a) as it applies to any building or other property subject to VA's jurisdiction, and VA is otherwise authorized to prescribe rules to protect persons and property on VA property under 38 U.S.C. 901."

I'm not trying to treat this as a joke, but how many lay people or even those with a major interest such as our wounded vets are going to be able to read and educate themselves on this proposed change? How many are going to be able to come back and address their concerns in such a way to make their voices heard?


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

Thanks for the info.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Here is a point that is a fairly easy start point that we can look at and discuss if anyone is interested.

Proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(vii)(A) through (C) would permit VA to request documentation to confirm that a service animal has a current rabies vaccination (1 year or 3 year interval, depending on local requirements), and that a service animal has had a comprehensive physical examination by a licensed veterinarian within the last 12 months that confirms immunizations with core canine vaccines (in addition to the required rabies vaccine) distemper, parvovirus, and adenovirus-2, and screening for and treatment of internal and external parasite as well as control of such parasites. Additionally, the individual with a disability would be asked to confirm in writing that at least seven days have elapsed since the dog recovered from (as applicable), any of the following: vomiting, diarrhea, urinary or fecal incontinence, sneezing or coughing, open wounds, skin infections or mucus membrane infections, orthopedic or other conditions that may interfere with ambulation within the VA facility, and estrus in intact female dogs.


----------

