# Service Dogs As Only Animals



## Gharrissc (May 19, 2012)

I've heard of several people say that Service Dogs shouldn't go to a home with another dog because it serves as distraction to them. We had a guy ask us to help him place his two dogs because the organization that he was getting his Service Dog from said that he would have to place his pet dogs first. I wanted to know if dogs can differentiate between work mode and non work mode,why can't they do this while living with another dog?
I have a friend who trains Service Dogs and he will not place his dogs with people who have another dog, unless they are willing to rehome their current dog.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

that is the case with many organizations that I have provided for


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

carmspack said:


> that is the case with many organizations that I have provided for


 Yup
While I try to look at this from a case by case prospective to try and justify accommodating the PWD in this regard. I can honestly say that I only did this twice. One time was with a PWD that had a dog that was on deaths door and passed shortly after the dog was placed. The other was a mistake that I kick myself for. When it became an identified issue they understood clearly and re-homed the dog 3 months after the SD was placed and we did our first follow up. Since the re-training of the dog, the dog is functioning again within tolerance levels with no further issues.


----------



## JeaneneR (Aug 22, 2012)

While I have five dogs total in my house it isn't a situation I would recommend. Unless you're very structured in your home life and how you manage your dogs you're only going to mess up a service dog by placing them in a home with other dogs. 

I think the only reason I manage is three of my dogs are working soon to retire stock dogs who live a very structured life, a service dog and service dog in training. My dogs are not allowed or encouraged to play with each other and they're never left loose when we're not home. All the interaction, play and enjoyment they get from me. Service dogs are not pet's and while they need time to run and play and be dogs you still can't treat them like pets.


----------



## Gharrissc (May 19, 2012)

I guess it wouldn't hurt for me to do some more research on service dogs. I don't plan on working with them,but do like to be educated. I didn't think that playing with other dogs in their 'down time' was a problem. I guess it can be though.

Jenene, do your dogs try to play with each other or is it not that important to them?Would it not be practical to teach the service animal to focus on a task you need them to do even if other dogs were in the home or does it have to do more with the maintanence of the other animals?


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

JeaneneR said:


> Unless you're very structured in your home life and how you manage your dogs you're only going to mess up a service dog by placing them in a home with other dogs.
> 
> Service dogs are not pet's and while they need time to run and play and be dogs you still can't treat them like pets.


 Thats the real problem that most do not understand. When you bring a Pet mentality/training to the working dog world, time and time again it has proven to be a disaster.


----------



## JeaneneR (Aug 22, 2012)

None of my dogs are allowed to play with each other. When I bring a puppy home they are kept crated or leashed until adulthood and at that point they are completely focused on the people in the household. The other dogs are just there, each knows their place and their job. 

Terry, that's a large part of why many handler's can't handle their own service dogs. Because they come from households with 'pets' and want to teach their service dog like a pet. 

I don't mean that you can't play with your service dog, that you can't love on and give attention to your service dog (or working dog since I have worked with protection dogs as well) You should love and play with your service dog... but play with other dogs is a risk that I as a handler am not willing to take... with their training and with their safety.


----------



## Gharrissc (May 19, 2012)

What risks does playing with other dogs in the home pose,besides focus? Btw I have looked this up online and haven't found that much information. I'm involved in rescue,but am obviously pretty green when it comes to the whole service dog scene(except for the basic stuff). This isn't to start a heated debate,it's just a curiosity for me. I guess I would have to be in that situation of a service dog trainer to understand.




JeaneneR said:


> but play with other dogs is a risk that I as a handler am not willing to take... with their training and with their safety.


----------



## JeaneneR (Aug 22, 2012)

No matter how well you know your dogs, and no matter how well trained there is always a risk of injury when playing with other dogs. Temper tantrums happen and with a service dog it can cause them to be reactive with other dogs as well as injury which can end a service dog's working life. 

Not to mention that focus is a big issue, with a working dog the partnership between handler and dog needs to be extremely strong and you don't need your dog looking for attention from the other dog(s) in the house.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

JeaneneR said:


> Terry, that's a large part of why many handler's can't handle their own service dogs. Because they come from households with 'pets' and want to teach their service dog like a pet.


I would say it is a "Pet" mentality in general that gets people in troubble with working dogs.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

I know of many cases where active working SDs live in a home with other animals. I do not see a need for a thread to give the consensus to the claim that it is wrong for a SD to live in a household with other animals as an absolute. My opinion is that this topic should be based on the SD itself and the way the household is run with all animals in that household as part of the equation. 

If an organization does not wish to place a SD in a home with other animals, just as with a rescue that does not wish to foster one of their animals in a home with other animals, then that is a policy that needs to be followed by an individual. If you take on one of their animals then you must follow that opinion as that is a point that organization feels is important and necessary. If an organization states that you must feed one of their animals or work with one of their animals in a certain manner then that is something that you have agreed to when taking one of their animals. If you don't agree then my opinion is you need to look elsewhere. 

I do not want a thread such as this, to go without an opposing view, that may lead future readers to believe that the opinion that a SD must live in a home without other animals is something that all SD professionals or experienced handlers believe or the SD community believes as a whole. As with any other choices made - look at your own life experience and knowledge and research further if you believe necessary - and then make an informed decision for yourself and your own circumstances.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

I know a couple people that have service dogs along with their own "pets" and have never had a problem.

A friend that raises dogs for CCI raises them in her pack of 4.

I also know of a couple that each have their OWN service dog. What would an organization have THEM do - get divorced??


----------



## Rangers-mom (Jan 28, 2013)

Wow this is an interesting thread. I am not sure my comments are relative because i am not sure how you define a SD, but when we decided to raise a Seeing Eye pup we were told that having another dog was a plus. In fact in order to raise a GSD we were required to have an older dog that would reduce some of the alpha behaviors. (Fat lot of good that did as our Aussie is a big wimp.) They seeing eye will place labs and goldens in homes as only dogs but not shepherds. I find this discussion really interesting because i can't tell you how many times i thought to myself "this would be so much easier if i didn't have another dog with another set of rules". 

Robin


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Rangers-mom said:


> Wow this is an interesting thread. I am not sure my comments are relative because i am not sure how you define a SD ... "
> 
> Robin



All members are welcome to give their opinion and share their experiences so all are relative. 

As far as how a SD is defined: I in my personal non-profit work go with the somewhat more International and definition used by many organizations and some states in speaking in their state statutes with the term *Assistance Dog* broken down further into categories.

Assistance Dog
1) Guide Dogs
2) Hearing Dogs
3) Service Dogs

When posting here I sometimes go back and forth with the terms *Assistance Dogs* and *Service Dogs* to mean the group of dogs trained to mitigate the disability of an individual as a whole.

When speaking of the Dept. of Justice Regulations and many Federal Laws (which base themselves on the ADA and the followup through the DOJ) I speak of Service Dogs as they define in their documents. Now HUD on the other hand talk of Assistance Dogs in their regs on housing issues. 

So sometimes you have to inquire exactly what is meant in a discussion. This is a point that I always try to make when giving a public presentation or workshop on these working dogs. 

I just wanted to come back and toss some more distractions into this point to make some people more confused. Just kidding but it does start making one wonder sometimes .... 

For threads here on this forum just go with the thought that *Service Dog* is referring to a dog trained for a PWD and not wonder if it means guide, assistance, medical service etc.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I'm with ILGHAUS on that its a case by case basis.

I completely understand why most professional organizations don't want another dog in the house. They know you raised that dog like a pet, and you probably don't quite understand that this is something different. Training/upkeep will erode as you treat your service animal more and more like a pet. The organization spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours training a dog and they don't want to see it wasted or put it at any risk for not being able to perform its job to the highest ability.

It is also hard work to keep up with 2 dogs, 3 dogs, or even 4 dogs. Imagine training, giving attention, playing, with that many dogs. I know people do it, but it takes up a lot of time. Now you have a dog that is going to get the majority of a person's attention because of their need for the dog and just the fact that it will always be around them. It's kind of the same thing we see with Schutzhund people rehoming a dog that doesn't work out because they're going to have another dog that is going to get a majority of their attention...its much more fair to the dog to be in a place where they will be the center of attention of a loving family than a second or third dog of another one.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

ILGHAUS said:


> All members are welcome to give their opinion and share their experiences so all are relative.
> 
> As far as how a SD is defined: I in my personal non-profit work go with the somewhat more International and definition used by many organizations and some states in speaking in their state statutes with the term *Assistance Dog* broken down further into categories.
> 
> ...


Well written TJ 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## flynbyu2 (Apr 29, 2012)

My lead K9 instructor prefers that my working K9 be seperated from our pet. The biggest concern is that K9s work 10 hours a day and need lots of rest before thier next 10 hour day.

They cant get that rest if they're wrestling around with any other dogs in the house.

Weekends of course is play time for everyone!


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

flynbyu2 said:


> My lead K9 instructor prefers that my working K9 be seperated from our pet. The biggest concern is that K9s work 10 hours a day and need lots of rest before thier next 10 hour day.
> 
> They cant get that rest if they're wrestling around with any other dogs in the house.
> 
> Weekends of course is play time for everyone!


There is an old saying, the only thing two trainers will ever agree on is what the third one is doing wrong 
With that said, the ultimate proof in performance of a working dog is in the pudding. I agree that working dogs need down time, I believe that downtime needs to be consistent in both time and location to avoid conflict that will effect there job.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

I disagree with this rule used as an absolute as well. And its caused me a lot of trouble lol. Ruled out many organizations I would have liked to talk to about acquiring a service dog from. 

I feel it depends very much on the individual case. With animals training never stops, you can place a perfectly trained SD in a home with someone who will not continue that training and the dog will act like a pet and not a SD rather quickly. Thats why reputable organizations require the handlers to go through training to be able to keep up the training of the dog. I've seen SDs from great organizations that don't act like SDs any longer, and SDs owner trained that rival the best organizations. It all depends. 

I currently have a semi retired (due to health) service dog and my other dog who is a service dog in training washout. I refuse to rehome her, she's a member of the family. I also plan to continue using her to assist me at home since mobility assistance is so physically demanding, and she washed out because I don't trust her in public access the way is required. As I'm looking for a SD to fully retire my current one, not many organizations would accept me. And unfortunately due to the progression of my disabilities I don't feel I would be physically able to start over again and reach the level of training required for a dog to be a SD. I also am picky wanting to stay with my GSDs lol, which further complicates things. So currently I've only found one organization that meets my needs and I meet their requirements. But I'll have to fundraise quite a lot and won't be receiving my next SD for a few years as a result.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

Lin said:


> I disagree with this rule used as an absolute as well. And its caused me a lot of trouble lol. Ruled out many organizations I would have liked to talk to about acquiring a service dog from.
> 
> I feel it depends very much on the individual case. With animals training never stops, you can place a perfectly trained SD in a home with someone who will not continue that training and the dog will act like a pet and not a SD rather quickly. Thats why reputable organizations require the handlers to go through training to be able to keep up the training of the dog. I've seen SDs from great organizations that don't act like SDs any longer, and SDs owner trained that rival the best organizations. It all depends.
> 
> I currently have a semi retired (due to health) service dog and my other dog who is a service dog in training washout. I refuse to rehome her, she's a member of the family. I also plan to continue using her to assist me at home since mobility assistance is so physically demanding, and she washed out because I don't trust her in public access the way is required. As I'm looking for a SD to fully retire my current one, not many organizations would accept me. And unfortunately due to the progression of my disabilities I don't feel I would be physically able to start over again and reach the level of training required for a dog to be a SD. I also am picky wanting to stay with my GSDs lol, which further complicates things. So currently I've only found one organization that meets my needs and I meet their requirements. But I'll have to fundraise quite a lot and won't be receiving my next SD for a few years as a result.


I would agree with you 100% on this. ADI is not cutting it and does not have any variance. In spite of the short supply and demand in relation to Service Dogs, they want a monopoly on the Military. This would exclude owner trainers and PTSD dogs (a type of Service Dog that our wounded warriors will need the most). This is reinforced by the new order signed by the Secretary of the Army in January.
SDS Service Dog Schools is an accreditation organization that has an SD code that is truly universal that allows for all types of Service Dogs with a real guarantee to the PWD that the SD will be certified and annually re certified to ensure the SD meets minimum performance tolerances. 

As for the "Absolute", because human nature had a big "monkey see monkey do" attitude, to ensure that the word discrimination does not rear it's ugly head on this, An absolute is the only realistic option at this time. At least till SDS gets the code published and a better handle on the nonsense within the SD industry.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Not on topic with OP but in reply to last post for clarification ...



SFGSSD said:


> I would agree with you 100% on this. ADI is not cutting it and does not have any variance. In spite of the short supply and demand in relation to Service Dogs, they want a monopoly on the Military. This would exclude owner trainers and PTSD dogs (a type of Service Dog that our wounded warriors will need the most). This is reinforced by the new order signed by the Secretary of the Army in January.
> SDS Service Dog Schools is an accreditation organization that has an SD code that is truly universal that allows for all types of Service Dogs with a real guarantee to the PWD that the SD will be certified and annually re certified to ensure the SD meets minimum performance tolerances.
> 
> As for the "Absolute", because human nature had a big "monkey see monkey do" attitude, to ensure that the word discrimination does not rear it's ugly head on this, An absolute is the only realistic option at this time. At least till SDS gets the code published and a better handle on the nonsense within the SD industry.
> ...


"ADI is not cutting it and does not have any variance."
I may have looked at your organization incorrectly but when I checked into it:
~ There were 7 members so as of yet it is not in the same classification as the worldwide organization ADI.

"SDS Service Dog Schools is an accreditation organization that has an SD code that is truly universal that allows for all types of Service Dogs with a real guarantee to the PWD that the SD will be certified and annually re certified to ensure the SD meets minimum performance tolerances."
~ Accreditation?? By which accreditation agency? Or do you mean that it is a project under Service Dogs of Florida, Inc.? 
~ The Code is promoted but not only not published but quote from site:
"What do you know, there is nothing here yet. The reason is that the code isn’t complete, you’re invited to help create the code by publishing articles and etiquette sections. These will be voted on by all the SDS members in a democratic fashion and those proposed additions will form this book."

Also, as stated on the site that only dogs trained through an approved organization (must be a member of SD) or owner trained under an approved trainer (must be a member of SD) this means that until your organization grows quite a bit then it is more limiting than the current ADI. 

So at this time, I'm not sure how SDS Service Dog Schools is the answer to Lin's (and others in her situation) concern dealing with a lack of facilities in which to get a dog to meet her individual needs. 

And, what is the stand of Service Dog Schools on having other pets in the home with a working Assistance Dog - to get back to OP's topic? Has that part of the Code or Policy been voted on yet? With your last post it sounds like they will be fine with this as an organization and something that their spokespeople will go along with or will it be up to the individual trainers and organizations to decide that? 

Again, I wasn't going to post these questions here but the subject was brought up and I just wanted to clarify what I was reading.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

ILGHAUS said:


> Not on topic with OP but in reply to last post for clarification ...


1. SDS is attempting to fill a void and uphold the ADA in regards to Service Dogs. We are in process of setting a realistic standard of performance and actually enforcing it. It is painfully clear this is not the case with ADI. ADI has become a boys club and a political machine. ADI outside the US seems to hold a much higher standard than ADI does in the United States. Regardless, when I seen what they are doing with our wounded warriors and the monopoly they are trying to secure with the military that is a clear violation of the ADA, it confirmed my and others original thoughts on ADI. Just because they are big, does not make what they are doing right. At this time, we are not looking to replace ADI, we are looking to start filling in where ADI is lacking. "Nothing here yet" true, it is not complete yet... But it is getting there. When it is complete, there will be FULL DISCLOSURE, can ADI say they have full public disclosure with their policy? We are speaking with the best Working and Service Dog trainers around the world. This is not a political popularity contest. This is an approach that is designed to get realistic results. We are not seeking emotionally driven pet trainers to help develop the code. We are seeking true professionals who actually know what a working dog is all about along with complete competency of the training and conditioning of these special dogs. A few books and emotionally driven nonsense will not cut it to be on the board to help create the SDS code.

2. We plan to accredit schools in a similar way ADI did. We also will certify trainers (Professional and Owner Trainers). The big difference is our accreditation will be enforced by the code alone, not by politics. It does not matter who you are friends with, if you do not follow the code, you’re out. No ifs ands or buts, This is about the PWD, the quality of performance under our standard, the safety and security of the general public and business owners, NOT about who is a good old boy joining the club. There is no overseeing body for ADI nor is there an accreditation for ADI itself that I am aware of so I am unsure what the heck you are talking about.

3. Our size is irrelevant at this time. We are attempting to open doors that ADI slammed shut on a lot of PWD particularly our wounded warriors coming home that need PTSD Service Dogs.

4. ADI offers an "Implied Guarantee" backed by ZERO accountability. They also do not tell the public the full story when it comes to their "Policy".

5.”And, what is the stand of Service Dog Schools on having other pets in the home with a working Assistance Dog?” I honestly believe it should be on a probationary case by case basis if it means that much to the PWD. While the SD will/should be trained to tolerate other animals, the PET in the home more than likely will be the real issue that cannot be ignored if harmony cannot exist between the SD and the PET in a way that will not affect the job of the SD. This has not been fully discussed yet or voted on, however it seems that it is leaning in this direction and I am ok with that.


6. Are we as big as ADI at this time? No, but bigger is not always better TJ, especially when politics and money have become a priority. 7 members/orgs you are aware of at this time... yes, and growing. However, if you are not aware, most ADI affiliated schools shun Owner-Trainers, so the numbers actually willing to help an OT are very much less in comparison. We have a plan to realistically fix this issue as well. The way it is now, it can only get better, not worse with SDS.

By SDS existing and being a resource, an OT can see what the expectations are with SDS which should help improve their self-training until they can get professional assistance if needed under the code. This provision is not set in stone yet, but we are working on it. So far it looks great!


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Terry, thank you for the clarification. Do they have any timeline on when their Code will be completed or when they will go independent?


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

SFGSSD said:


> We are speaking with the best Working and Service Dog trainers around the world. This is not a political popularity contest. This is an approach that is designed to get realistic results. We are not seeking emotionally driven pet trainers to help develop the code. We are seeking true professionals who actually know what a working dog is all about along with complete competency of the training and conditioning of these special dogs. A few books and emotionally driven nonsense will not cut it to be on the board to help create the SDS code.


You didn't mention service dog handlers. Are there PWDs who are service dog handlers involved as well, or only able bodied SD Trainers?


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

ILGHAUS said:


> Terry, thank you for the clarification. Do they have any timeline on when their Code will be completed or when they will go independent?


TJ,
>Terry, thank you for the clarification. Do they have any timeline on when their Code will be completed or when they will go independent?

No problem TJ 

Stages
1. Drafting (select ot's, members, orgs) (< 50 people) (nearly 1000 pages need to be written)
2. Community Review (ot's, non members, public) (>200)
3. Finalization (board council)
4. Published standard for adoption
5. Spin-off of SDS corporate.


LIN,

>You didn't mention service dog handlers. Are there PWDs who are service dog handlers involved as well, or only able bodied SD Trainers?

Yes, about 20% of of the current advisers/writers are deeply connected to the OT side.
Unlike some, they have a voice at SDS and the OT viewpoint is evaluated with each rule or policy.


----------



## TommyB681 (Oct 19, 2012)

depends on agency policy. I know numerous k9 officers that have multiple pets. When they train they train alone or with other k9 officers


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

TommyB681 said:


> depends on agency policy. I know numerous k9 officers that have multiple pets. When they train they train alone or with other k9 officers


This is true, however in the home, the Police K-9 is either separated from the pets or they interact and it is a play area (they have down time at home) for the Police K-9. 

A Service Dog for Disabled People does not have that luxury as they need to perform their job in the home as well as out in public with reliability without conflict. A Service Dog playing with a pet out in the yard (only) may be acceptable and the PWD cannot expect reliability to be as good as non down time, but the SD playing inside the home as well as out can cause problems with the performance of the SD at home. Now the SD views the entire home inside and out as a break room.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

I am hoping to get a GSD that has the temperant and health to be a service dog as my current boy, though he has easily learned to perform many service tasks is a bit too reactive to rely on as a service dog in public.

I would never give him up nor would my husband ever give up his dog ( nor would I want h too) 
Does this mean I would not be able up have a service dog?

If I were able to train a dog to be able to pass a public access test could he not be registered as a service dog if we have pets in the home?

Sorry if these are dumb question. Some of this thread has me confused

I had thought that if one has a diagnosed disability that could benefit from an SD and had a dog that they or a trainer trained that could pass a public access test they could work as a service dog for their handler


----------



## Cheyanna (Aug 18, 2012)

Debbieg said:


> I am hoping to get a GSD that has the temperant and health to be a service dog as my current boy, though he has easily learned to perform many service tasks is a bit too reactive to rely on as a service dog in public.
> 
> I would never give him up nor would my husband ever give up his dog ( nor would I want h too)
> Does this mean I would not be able up have a service dog?
> ...


Deb, you are in California and it has no public access test. You can get an assistance dog tag from the county. You have to sign under the penalty of perjury (a felony for lying) to get the tag and answer questions about what the dog does for you. It may have been easier for me, because I park in handicap parking and wear medic alert jewelry. So they may not even have questioned it. The having no pets in the house is usually an organization's requirement. It is not a requirement of the law. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Cheyanna (Aug 18, 2012)

SDS ... I applaud you for taking the capitalistic step of filing a void. I have half a mind to do the same thing in California. Having said that ... It is merely a corporation that has no authority over dog training and service dogs. A trainer or organization does not need your accreditation. Do you have an attorney to seek legal advice from? If not, get one. The first time you deny an organization or trainer you will be sued. The first time a dog does damage that "graduated" from a trainer or organization you accredited, you will be sued.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

Cheyanna said:


> Deb, you are in California and it has no public access test. You can get an assistance dog tag from the county. You have to sign under the penalty of perjury (a felony for lying) to get the tag and answer questions about what the dog does for you.
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Yes I know it is easy to get these things on line and even a service dog vest, but I would not put them on a dog that could not pass a public access test and truly be a working service dog. 

So in California any one can claim their dog is a service dog?


----------



## Cheyanna (Aug 18, 2012)

Debbieg said:


> Yes I know it is easy to get these things on line and even a service dog vest, but I would not put them on a dog that could not pass a public access test and truly be a working service dog.
> 
> So in California any one can claim their dog is a service dog?


Yes, at the risk of going to prison. I don't think most people who want to pass their pet off as a service dog knows about the law that you get a special license.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

Debbieg said:


> I am hoping to get a GSD that has the temperant and health to be a service dog as my current boy, though he has easily learned to perform many service tasks is a bit too reactive to rely on as a service dog in public.
> 
> I would never give him up nor would my husband ever give up his dog ( nor would I want h too)
> Does this mean I would not be able up have a service dog?
> ...


There is no federal certification or testing for service dogs. Service dogs must meet the requirements to be a service dog in obedience, public access, and service task training but no testing is required. This is to give the maximum protection to the PWD. 

So, anyone who meets the requirements of legal disability (different from diagnosed medical disability) can have a SD, and it can be owner trained. No testing is required to jump from training to working and is under the discretion of the individual. However if you ever end up in court (can be sued by a business, landlord, etc) you must prove to the judge that you are legally disabled, and that your dog meets requirements to be a service dog. Depending on where you're located there may be additional criminal offenses if the judge deems the dog to not be a SD. Keeping an owner trained log is incredibly important to prove the training if you end up before a judge, as well as demonstrating the dogs training to the judge. 

In this thread we're discussing the rule that many service dog training organizations have, refusing to place a trained SD in a home that already has a dog. Some will make exceptions for homes with a retired SD, some organizations require the dog to be returned upon retirement. In your current situation with dogs in the home it would be very difficult to find a *reputable organization that would place a trained dog with you. This does NOT prevent you from owner training a dog. This is one of the primary reasons for many people to go the route of owner training, it was a big one for me when I was early on.*


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

Debbieg said:


> Yes I know it is easy to get these things on line and even a service dog vest, but I would not put them on a dog that could not pass a public access test and truly be a working service dog.
> 
> So in California any one can claim their dog is a service dog?


Good point! The way things are now, there are to many loopholes for people who wish to fake it. Problem is that the law does not close the loopholes enough to cut down exactly what you are describing to a minimum.

It is true that there is Federal law that requires certification of any kind ADI/Pet Partners/SDS/or any SD school, and that is a BIG problem as I am sure you have noticed. ADI has military law behind them but it is clearly discriminating and NOT in the best interest of our troops that need SD's. You also (Unless you are a Service Dog org./company/Federal Judge) you cannot ask/verify the disability. You MUST take there word for it. We all seen the problems this creates for the public, business owners as well as PWD that really do not know better. Never mind enabling others that are just looking to skirt the law. 

SDS is in process to publish a code that will fix this. It will not be a requirement under law, it will be voluntary for anyone to be a part of SDS. Although it is voluntary, once in motion, we strongly believe the proof is ultimately in the pudding and our program/dogs/handlers/trainers will speak for itself.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

Cheyanna said:


> It is merely a corporation that has no authority over dog training and service dogs. A trainer or organization does not need your accreditation. Do you have an attorney to seek legal advice from? If not, get one. The first time you deny an organization or trainer you will be sued. The first time a dog does damage that "graduated" from a trainer or organization you accredited, you will be sued.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Your right! And obviously because of the way things are and have progressed through a lot of others (Politics, poor performance, fakers, no laws, no enforced laws, poor/potentially dangerous advice, no clarity for the public or business owners that makes THEM comfortable as well as the PWD) we are here today.

We foresee that once the public sees the difference with SDS, the Government may adopt our code. There is no guarantee that they will adapt SDS, but we figure if they will adopt ADI while violating the ADA we got a great shot. 
As for everything else, we got it covered


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

SFGSSD said:


> .
> 
> SDS is in process to publish a code that will fix this. It will not be a requirement under law, it will be voluntary for anyone to be a part of SDS. Although it is voluntary, once in motion, we strongly believe the proof is ultimately in the pudding and our program/dogs/handlers/trainers will speak for itself.



SDS sounds like a great program. Glad to know it is close to me .


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Let's try to get this thread back on topic of if those with SDs should also be able to have other pets in the home.

Also, please remember that posts here are the opinions of the person making that particular post. No one person here speaks for all trainers, all handlers, all organizations. 

Myself, I believe there are various factors in the decision of pets in the home with a SD.
~ There are financial aspects. Can someone afford the care of a pet after meeting all of the needs of their SD?
~ There are the actual care issues. Can someone keep up with the feeding, grooming, exercise and other needs of a pet after seeing to the daily care of their SD?
~ Are there other members in the household to share in the care of a pet?
Will the pet be a shared household pet or is the pet mostly that of another household member? Is it right to tell other family members or housemate they are not allowed a pet just because they would be sharing living space with a SD?

I am currently trying to help a friend dealing with finding a new SD. She doesn't want - nor should she be forced - to have to give up her current SD who will shortly be 100% retired. She is faced with finding a program that can both meet her needs *and* allow other animals in the home (Some programs can be found for one criteria or the other but harder to find one that meets all). If that is not possible she is also looking into purchasing a candidate and having it trained as a suitable replacement SD. 

Another friend was able to find a program that was willing to allow her to keep her non-dog pet and also train a dog just for her needs. 

Also another friend that had two adult female German Shepherds, an elderly cat, when she purchased her SD Candidate and is now in the process of training that young male German Shepherd as her next SD. 

Others that I know are doing fine with multi-animal households with no problems keeping well-behaved and highly trained working dogs. For those who say never, no way should there be other animals in the home I have made my opinion known here. 

I have been wondering about our vets who are the new wave of those looking into SDs. While they are now dealing with their additional needs be it mobility, psych, or combination how horrible (in my opinion) that they have to deal with the additional enforced emotional trauma of having to rehome or even possibly euthanize loved pets they have waiting at home for them. How awful for those that are being forced to tell their kids they have to give up a loved pet so a parent can have a SD. I believe there needs to be more options then a stand of "Sorry but this is just another emotional fact of life so you are going to have to just deal with it." My opinion, there should be some options to look at the individual situation as a weighing factor in a final decision.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

ILGHAUS said:


> Let's try to get this thread back on topic of if those with SDs should also be able to have other pets in the home.
> 
> Also, please remember that posts here are the opinions of the person making that particular post. No one person here speaks for all trainers, all handlers, all organizations.
> 
> ...


TJ,
Your concerns are valid, however... Nowhere in your post did I see you support the position of "if it affects the job of the SD negatively to the point that the dog no longer functions it should not be allowed" as I stated in a previous post, I am ok with a case by case probationary period on this. The JOB of the SD should not be compromised in no way shape or form. Trainers and orgs spend a lot of time and money to train and raise a SD. Is it fair to them if all those efforts were in vain because of a real problem that could be avoided?Is it fair that someone else that would have more understanding of the role of a SD needs to wait even longer because the PWD in front of them treated there SD like a pet to the point that they no longer function properly? And they could of had that SD sooner?

My question for you TJ is do you only see the emotional side of things or do you see the reality behind things as well?

I am more companionate about the disabled than you will ever know. Along with my compassion is reason backed by experience that has no emotional influence, just professionalism. I had to lean this lesson myself the hard way TJ, since then, my professional judgement has not failed me again.




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

Are you serious? I think it goes without saying that we are all against anything that results in the SD no longer functioning as an SD. 

TJ has been involved in the professional side ("reality" if you will) for many years. She's also an established member of this forum so those of us that are frequent posters in this section know her pretty well, and many of us know her outside of this forum as well. She started the Assistance Dog Advocacy Project. 

You're a rather new member and therefor unestablished, and to be honest I find your posts quite confusing. In one thread you pretty much attack and belittle owner trainers, and then suddenly in another you're all for them? And spouting the benefits of supporting them?


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

Lin said:


> Are you serious? I think it goes without saying that we are all against anything that results in the SD no longer functioning as an SD.
> 
> TJ has been involved in the professional side ("reality" if you will) for many years. She's also an established member of this forum so those of us that are frequent posters in this section know her pretty well, and many of us know her outside of this forum as well. She started the Assistance Dog Advocacy Project.
> 
> You're a rather new member and therefor unestablished, and to be honest I find your posts quite confusing. In one thread you pretty much attack and belittle owner trainers, and then suddenly in another you're all for them? And spouting the benefits of supporting them?


I am not going to be baited into a persona attack. It was an honest question/s. I do not know TJ personally however, from what I understand from others I have been in contact with, I believe she is a very nice person, and sometimes too nice in regards to the company she keeps. Enough said about that.

In regards to emotionally motivated judgements, as I said, I have been guilty of it as well. We are all human, 31 years ago I was also very emotionally motivated when making calls on canines. It got me hurt, and it was a wake up call followed by my fathers "I told you so." Up until that point, I strongly believed I was saying/doing the right thing. Although what I felt until that point was completely right and just in spite of warnings from a lot more experienced professionals, it was the dog that had to teach me that lesson the hard way. Currently my emotions on this tell me to do everything I can to convey the reality of what can and more than likely be harmful to people in regards to canines The last thing I or the company I keep want is to inadvertently mislead anyone based on emotional, personal or political influence. 

If you do not like what I have to say, that is your prerogative. Often people end up in situations that is not met with 100% approval. In spite of what you are politically attempting to do here, I believe TJ truly is a nice person, and it would be an honor to get to know her better.






Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

Debbieg said:


> SDS sounds like a great program. Glad to know it is close to me .


Thank you Debbieg,

We are working hard to put together a code that will help as many people as possible. It is not an easy task, but we have enough professionals involved (that are not politically influenced) to assist in ironing out the bumps in the road. 

Thank you again we appreciate your support.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> I believe she is a very nice person, and sometimes too nice in regards to the company she keeps.


Thank you for the compliment. I agree sometimes when dealing with people who take advantage of animals, children, the elderly, or people with disabilities I try to remember and not say or do something that I will regret and possibly come across as being too nice in such company. And after working for over 15 years for the Sheriff's Dept. I have to admit that I have come across many that I would have preferred to never have laid eyes on.

But through the various Fed., State, and Local agencies and elected officials, emergency services, non-profits and businesses that I have worked along side with or had dealings with both through my paid job and my volunteer activities, I have never been told or been reported in evaluations as anything less than professional acting so I'm not going to concern myself overmuch on that point. 

So again, maybe this thread can get back to original topic or perhaps we have all weighed in with our opinions and there are no other members with anything to add.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

I finally found the video I was looking for. CCI - Canine Companions for Independence - placed these TWO service dogs in the same home. The dogs live together, play together but put those vests on and it's work-for-*YOUR*-human time.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Thanks Lauri for the link. :thumbup:


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

I also wanted to add that CCI doesn't charge for dogs - so this would not have been a case of a company wanting to make more money (by placing two dogs).


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

SFGSSD said:


> I am not going to be baited into a persona attack.


No one is trying to bait you into an attack. In fact, I found comments you've said already as attacks and that's where my response was coming from.



> If you do not like what I have to say, that is your prerogative. Often people end up in situations that is not met with 100% approval. In spite of what you are politically attempting to do here,


Please tell me, since you appear to know, what am I politically attempting to do here? 

I don't care about politics at all. What I'm attempting to do here is share knowledge and experience on service dogs, personal opinion, and make comments or questions that allow people to consider things they may not have previously.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

In the sprit of sharing information, CCI bills out approximately $38,000.00 per dog. No cost to the disabled handler but cost non the less that is part of the millions they get in funding. How many dogs do they put out a year?

These dogs in the video are functioning with and without a vest on. They are both trained dogs neither are pets.

Also the President of CCI is also part of the BOD with ADI. The same organization that shut out other SD orgs with Vets in the military. Including owner trainers.

Just sharing information. 



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

The original questions was about requiring a SD to be an ONLY dog. Your stance was that it was the right thing to do.

This couple has two SDs and have no problems.

So - *can *a SD live in a home with another dog? I say the answer is yes.

Also - several members of the board - people with *active *SDs - have said that they have SDs and other dogs at home with no problems.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Gharrissc said:


> I've heard of several people say that Service Dogs shouldn't go to a home with another dog because it serves as distraction to them. We had a guy ask us to help him place his two dogs because the organization that he was getting his Service Dog from said that he would have to place his pet dogs first. I wanted to know if dogs can differentiate between work mode and non work mode,why can't they do this while living with another dog?
> I have a friend who trains Service Dogs and he will not place his dogs with people who have another dog, unless they are willing to rehome their current dog.


As pointed out by Lauri this thread's OP posted:
"I wanted to know if dogs can differentiate between work mode and non work mode,why can't they do this while living with another dog?"


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Lauri & The Gang said:


> The original questions was about requiring a SD to be an ONLY dog. Your stance was that it was the right thing to do.
> 
> This couple has two SDs and have no problems.
> 
> ...


I also say a SD (term *SD* being used in a general sense) can live in a home with another dog and that they can continue to do their job correctly. This statement says "can" which opens the door to a potential and not a declaration that 100% "will be" able to do so. 

But so saying not all SDs can do so for some of the various reasons:
Handler does not reinforce and maintain proper training
Other dog in home does not have proper manners
SD is not of proper temperament and work ethic to be a working SD.
SD was not trained properly to begin with.

Many SD handlers are first time dog owners or they have only had pets that were untrained and allowed to act as they pleased. They on the whole would have a harder time in controlling the situation especially if they did not have another person to help fill in where needed.

Then we have the SD handlers that have been around dogs for years and they raise their pets to have house manners, are obedience trained to at least a basic level, and know how to keep their dogs acting in a proper manner when interacting inside of the home or as a family unit. 

Reading some of the replies here I just kind of sit back in amazement and wonder what goes on inside of some homes that SD potentials are going into. I have visions of dogs running through the home bouncing off the walls, knocking over furniture, tearing up items they can reach or turning on each other to fight for dominance while the owner just sits there in a hopeless lump.


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

ILGHAUS said:


> As pointed out by Lauri this thread's OP posted:
> "I wanted to know if dogs can differentiate between work mode and non work mode,why can't they do this while living with another dog?"



The Police K9's in our town live with their handlers families and they are allowed to have other pets. I am sure if this was a problem it would not be allowed.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

ILGHAUS said:


> I also say a SD (term *SD* being used in a general sense) can live in a home with another dog and that they can continue to do their job correctly. This statement says "can" which opens the door to a potential and not a declaration that 100% "will be" able to do so.


Thank you TJ, that is where my resistance comes from. The way this post was going, it seemed to imply it was 100% ok for everyone with a SD. This is not the case. While the possibility definitely exists, it is not a situation that would be successful with everyone. 




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Debbieg said:


> The Police K9's in our town live with their handlers families and they are allowed to have other pets. I am sure if this was a problem it would not be allowed.


I also know of K-9s that live in the same situation where they have contact with family members including other animals in the home.


----------

