# Service Dogs in Training...?



## Konotashi

Are service dogs that are in training allowed everywhere that a fully trained service dog is allowed? 

I went to Olive Garden yesterday and there was a dog there with a purple vest that said, "Service Dog in Training." I thought that they were only allowed in places like restaurants after they completed training? 

I figure this would leave a huge loophole. Someone could stick an 'in training' vest on their dog and take them wherever they wanted to, if that was the case, so long as the dog didn't cause an issue, couldn't they? Because don't they receive proof that the dog is specifically trained to perform specific tasks based on the handler's disability after training? So if someone asks to see proof, they could just say, "Well, he's in training." 

Just curious. Please enlighten the ignorant. :crazy:


----------



## KZoppa

Where is Lin when you need her? I'm curious about this as well because i saw a black lab wearing a SD in training vest as well the other day at Red Lobster.


----------



## Lin

Konotashi said:


> Are service dogs that are in training allowed everywhere that a fully trained service dog is allowed?


It depends.



KZoppa said:


> Where is Lin when you need her?


Give me a few minutes!! LOL

Ok, it depends on your state. Federally, SDITs have no public access rights. In California for example, SDITs have the exact same public access rights as SDs. In Indiana, SDITs have the same public access rights "when accompanied by a service dog trainer" and does not define service dog trainer. So you could interpret that to include owner trained dogs or only organization trained dogs. When Tessa was a SDIT, I started out calling places in advance and asking if they allowed SDITs just to cover my a**.

ETA: I don't consider it to be a loophole... IMO abusing a SDIT patch/vest is no different than abusing a SD one. Most of the time, if your dog doesn't cause a problem no one is going to question either. I could see where people might be more likely to abuse a SDIT one, since you could use the 'in training' as an excuse for inappropriate behavior. But people even slap therapy dog vests/patches on and take dogs places when therapy dogs have NO public access rights (they are only welcome when invited.)


----------



## KZoppa

Lin said:


> It depends.
> 
> 
> Give me a few minutes!! LOL
> 
> Ok, it depends on your state. Federally, SDITs have no public access rights. In California for example, SDITs have the exact same public access rights as SDs. In Indiana, SDITs have the same public access rights "when accompanied by a service dog trainer" and does not define service dog trainer. So you could interpret that to include owner trained dogs or only organization trained dogs. When Tessa was a SDIT, I started out calling places in advance and asking if they allowed SDITs just to cover my a**.


 

hehe thanks for the info!


----------



## Konotashi

...So where can I get a mini SDIT vest for Ozzy? LOL

(Kidding).


----------



## AbbyK9

If I remember correctly, in Virginia, SDITs can be in public like fully-trained Service Dogs if they are accompanied either by their disabled handler or a trainer. If accompanied by a trainer, they are required to have something on their group/company's official letterhead showing their affiliation and that they are training, and IIRC they also must be clearly vested with the organization's logo and "in training".


----------



## BOHICA Bay

When we had the guide puppy we raised we were able to take her everywhere when she was wearing her "in training" vest. Establishments could have asked us to take her out and we'd not have been able to force them to allow her in, but we did not ever encounter anywhere that was unwilling to welcome her. She went to school with my sister (she was the actual puppy raiser, the rest of us assisted, lo), flew on planes and traveled by bus to attend FHA events (that was the program my sister opted to use the experience as a project for), went into stores, restaurants, hospitals, offices - ANYWHERE my sister went, so did the dog.
She had a collar with information regarding her affiliation and the school from which she came to be placed with us as well as paperwork, but we were never asked to provide either to gain entrance to anyplace she was taken.
FTR, this was over 20 years ago, so I realize things may have changed.


----------



## EJQ

Lin said:


> It depends.
> But people even slap therapy dog vests/patches on and take dogs places when therapy dogs have NO public access rights (they are only welcome when invited.)


Sorry that's not true in our area of New York State. Our TDI dogs are welcome just about anyplace - including the enclosed shopping malls.
In NYC dogs are welcome in most large department stores (such as Macy's) as well as various other public buildings; regardless of whether you are talking a service dog, therapy dog or companion dog.
You need to do some homework as to what is acceptable in your area.
BTW, TDI dogs do not wear vests.


----------



## DJEtzel

EJQ said:


> Sorry that's not true in our area of New York State. Our TDI dogs are welcome just about anyplace - including the enclosed shopping malls.
> In NYC dogs are welcome in most large department stores (such as Macy's) as well as various other public buildings; regardless of whether you are talking a service dog, therapy dog or companion dog.
> You need to do some homework as to what is acceptable in your area.
> BTW, TDI dogs do not wear vests.


What businesses may allow is not the same as a law. LEGALLY, therapy dogs have NO public access rights. And most of us here know that TDI dogs (and most therapy org. dogs) do not wear vests, but Lin was stating that people will Slap a vest with it on the dog ANYWAY and take them out where they are not legally allowed.  

eta; I think since Lin has her own service dog, she's pretty well versed on what is legal and where it's legal at.


----------



## Lin

DJEtzel said:


> What businesses may allow is not the same as a law. LEGALLY, therapy dogs have NO public access rights. And most of us here know that TDI dogs (and most therapy org. dogs) do not wear vests, but Lin was stating that people will Slap a vest with it on the dog ANYWAY and take them out where they are not legally allowed.
> 
> eta; I think since Lin has her own service dog, she's pretty well versed on what is legal and where it's legal at.


Yep, exactly. Therapy dogs have no public access rights or protection under the ADA the way service dogs do. SDITs have no public access rights or protection under the ADA the way service dogs do. However individual states may give SDITs public access rights. 

When it comes to therapy dogs its an invited access, as the dog is never required the way a service dog is. SDs have public access because to deny them it would be discrimination, as far as the law is concerned they are medical equipment and not animals. Therapy dogs are still animals, and the distinction is especially important when it comes to places with food such as grocery stores or restaurants where bringing a pet breaks health codes. And yet people still slap SD vests, in training vests, therapy vests etc on their dogs and take them into public where they aren't allowed.


----------



## AbbyK9

> Sorry that's not true in our area of New York State. Our TDI dogs are welcome just about anyplace - including the enclosed shopping malls.


I think TDI is very clear about the fact that TDI certification is not, in fact, Service Dog certification and that these are Therapy Dogs and NOT Service Dogs. In fact, the new TDI ID cards specifically say that they are NOT Service Dogs. 

They even changed their rules from allowing vests to no longer allowing vests because people WERE passing their TDI dogs off as Service Dogs, often counting on the fact that most people will ask, "Is this a Service Dog?" and, on getting the answer, "S/he is a Therapy Dog" will believe that this means the dog is a Service Dog. (Which is not lying but pretty **** close to it.)

There are LOADS of places that will allow you to bring well-behaved pet dogs into the store with you. In my area, Gander Mountain in the mall lets you. Tractor Supply lets you. Lots of small stores will let you if you ask. I don't see a need for bringing dogs where pet dogs are not normally allowed by telling people they are Therapy Dogs - even if the dog is a TDI dog, s/he still does NOT have public access rights.


----------



## EJQ

DJEtzel said:


> What businesses may allow is not the same as a law. LEGALLY, therapy dogs have NO public access rights. And most of us here know that TDI dogs (and most therapy org. dogs) do not wear vests, but Lin was stating that people will Slap a vest with it on the dog ANYWAY and take them out where they are not legally allowed.
> 
> eta; I think since Lin has her own service dog, she's pretty well versed on what is legal and where it's legal at.


You know every time I see you come up on my screen I can depend upon a confrontational, negative series of comments. Where did you see me even mention a word about legalities?! Where did you see me mention public access for therapy dogs?! I very simply stated what is acceptable in my particular area and that regardless of whether you have a service dog, therapy dog, or companion dog there is chance that you might be welcome in many establishments. This is particularly true in NYC (New York City). The folks in charge of the businesses that I visit know that therapy dogs are not service dogs - our 2011 ID cards contain text stating that this dog is not a service dog.
I was pretty certain that my comments to Konotashi were just a reflection of my personal experience.
Leave it to you to, once again, to turn it to an attack. Those of us that have been on the board for a few years know that our role is to try to help people in areas that are unfamiliar to them - try to remember that!!


----------



## ILGHAUS

As has already been posted, some states do allow SDITs but you must be aware of the whole law. As I posted in another thread several days ago, your home state may give you the right to take your SDIT into non-pet places with you but travel to the next state and you may be told to leave as they do not recognize SDITs. 

Another fact to remember is that even those states who recognize SDITs may be strict on who they consider to be "a trainer" and they may also dictact under what circumstances. One state may say a SDIT may be taken into a restaurant with a trainer while being actively trained. Here it can start to get very complicated. Would you stopping by with your dog for a quick soda be considered training? Would you sitting there eating a salad and a fairly simple meal be "training"? A dinner that went on for several courses and a relaxed dessert - what about that? Same as if you are training the dog to work in a grocery store. A reasonable person would say you pushing a cart with the dog heeling by your side while you pick up a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter and then going through the check-out line would say that is a training session. But what if you go in during the busiest time of the week and have a major shopping list? Is that a training session where you are making sure the dog is behaving up to the level he should be or is that you taking your dog on an outing while you do your shopping?

Some states do not recognize certain types of SDITs. Their state law may say Guide and Hearing Dogs only or maybe Guide, Hearing, and dogs to assist physically disabled persons only. What about dogs in training to be a PSD? They are not recognized in those states - under their state law - and the trainers have no right to take those future SDs into places that say no pets. In such a state a PSD in training would on then be allowed into no-pet buildings once they became a fully trained SD at which time they would then be addressed under Fed. law.


----------



## DJEtzel

EJQ said:


> You know every time I see you come up on my screen I can depend upon a confrontational, negative series of comments. Where did you see me even mention a word about legalities?! Where did you see me mention public access for therapy dogs?! I very simply stated what is acceptable in my particular area and that regardless of whether you have a service dog, therapy dog, or companion dog there is chance that you might be welcome in many establishments. This is particularly true in NYC (New York City). The folks in charge of the businesses that I visit know that therapy dogs are not service dogs - our 2011 ID cards contain text stating that this dog is not a service dog.
> I was pretty certain that my comments to Konotashi were just a reflection of my personal experience.
> Leave it to you to, once again, to turn it to an attack. Those of us that have been on the board for a few years know that our role is to try to help people in areas that are unfamiliar to them - try to remember that!!


All I said was that Lin was correct where you said she was not. You didn't pose any comment towards the original post as far as I could see, you were just trying to argue against what Lin said. I didn't attack anyone or say anything confrontational. You tried correcting her and I corrected you. Just part of sorting out the facts on a forum.


----------



## Lin

EJQ said:


> Where did you see me even mention a word about legalities?! Where did you see me mention *public access for therapy dogs?!*





EJQ said:


> Lin said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends.
> But people even slap therapy dog vests/patches on and take dogs places when *therapy dogs have NO public access rights* (they are only welcome when invited.)
> 
> 
> 
> *Sorry that's not true in our area of New York State. *Our TDI dogs are welcome just about anyplace -
Click to expand...

It sure seemed as if you were discussing public access, because you quoted my statement that therapy dogs don't have public access by replying "thats not true." What you're referring to is invited access, not public access which is what was being discussed when you quoted me.


----------



## DJEtzel

***Quoted message has been deleted.***

lmao, whaaat? :wild:


----------



## onyx'girl

Looks like you have a stalker DJ....
mskailuakona don't knock MI if you've never been there~ it really is a paradise peninsula...year round!


----------



## Ruthie

My friend with a SDIT takes her everywhere. I don't know if that is because MI law allows it or if the resturants she goes to are supportive of the program.


----------



## ILGHAUS

> My friend with a SDIT takes her everywhere. I don't know if that is because MI law allows it or if the resturants she goes to are supportive of the program.


MI State Law .... (bolding is mine)

State Statute 750.502c, Sec. 502c

(2) A person who is an owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public or private housing, accommodation, amusement, or recreation, including, but not limited to, the places listed in subsection (1), who refuses to permit a trainer of guide or leader dogs, hearing dogs, or service dogs to enter or use the place when the place is available because the trainer is being led or accompanied by a guide or leader dog, hearing dog, or service dog is guilty of a misdemeanor if the guide or leader dog is wearing a harness or if the hearing dog or service dog is wearing a hearing dog cape or service dog backpack, *if the trainer is being led or accompanied by an adult dog for the purpose of training the dog, and if the trainer has in his or her possession picture identification and identification stating that he or she is a representative or employee of an organization or trainer, or is a trainer, included on the department of labor list of organizations or trainers that train guide or leader dogs, hearing dogs, or service dogs.*

If your friend is not on the state's list for training organizations then she is violating state law. The resturants themselves can not make a decision (if they are supportive or not) as that is a Health Dept. regulation. Only SDITs who are being actively trained at that particular trip or a SD are allowed by law. 

Staff and owners due to the fear of being sued often don't press the issue or in some cases they may not understand the law. But, if your friend is not an employee from an approved facility or organization and she and her SDIT were in a restaurant when there was a health inspector present that restaurant could be in major trouble.


----------



## Lin

Restaurants and grocery stores are different than other business. Most other business have the ability to choose if they wish to allow pet or SDIT dogs in. This can be by the chain, or by the individual store manager etc. However when it comes to food being present, you're breaking health codes with a pet or SDIT if there is not protection from the state.


----------



## martemchik

I'm really interested in this topic but don't have much to say about the legal truths of it just that the bigger "loophole" is that businesses can't ask you what kind of service your dog provides, just if it is a service dog. So in all technicallity it would be easier to abuse the SD title than a SDIT vest. (Lin and I have had this discussion before).

Now is a therapy dog the same as a TDI dog, because I remember reading/seeing news about "therapy dogs" given to soldiers with PTSS and I'm wondering if that is the samething. I want to get my dog titled in TDI to go to nursing homes and schools and am wondering if he would be "welcome" at other establishments after that.


----------



## Jax08

How do SDIT get the training if they are not allowed in the places that they would be going? Can you call ahead and ask management of the place? It just seems that the dogs in training may be missing out on a valuable exposure experience if they aren't allowed in the same places that a SD is.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

My friend raised Golden puppies for CCI - Canine Companions for Independence.

She had to call anyplace she wanted to take the puppy before going there to make sure they were ok with her bringing in the puppy.

MOST places were ok with it - some were not.

It was up to her to find places to take the young dog (that WERE ok with it) to get him used to being in all sorts of different places.


----------



## Lin

martemchik said:


> I'm really interested in this topic but don't have much to say about the legal truths of it just that the bigger "loophole" is that businesses can't ask you what kind of service your dog provides, just if it is a service dog. So in all technicallity it would be easier to abuse the SD title than a SDIT vest. (Lin and I have had this discussion before).


Actually yes they can ask. They can ask if your dog is a service dog, and what kind of service dog the dog is as well as what tasks the dog performs for you. They cannot ask for certification or what your disability is. Its not a loophole, the law is written the way it is to protect the disabled. The best defense is education. When a store knows what they can and cannot ask it because quite clear who is faking and who has legitimate service dogs. 

As for training.... How training is done depends on where and who is doing the training. As was already mentioned in this thread, states each have their own laws surrounding SDITs. In Indiana, SDITs have the same access rights when accompanied by their trainer. In other states, some give the same rights as SDs and some say specifically who and when such as recognized training organizations and only during active training sessions. 

If the specific state gives NO rights to SDITs, there are still many options. When it comes to non food businesses the trainer can call and ask if the store will allow SDITs in. When it comes to food, they can set up their own training. For example with guide dogs they don't start training out on the sidewalks of a busy city. You start off in a controlled area designed by the training organization. You can also have a mock grocery store available for training. Or mock restaurant setting. Just as training all other things, you don't start with the most difficult scenario you start easy and build up. 

For restaurants, it was quite easy for me to make that jump. Tessa has a natural desire to curl up under a table or desk in front of me. So we worked on this at home, where she ALWAYS curled up under the table while I ate. She knew not to beg for food or sniff plates. We had a solid stay command, and leave it command. 

For a grocery store, we started out in walmart at the other side of the store. Began in boring isles to teach for her to remain focused. Built up to being closer and closer to the food. Trained her at 3 am in the walmart when little to no other people were shopping. Gradually made things more difficult before I trusted her to not sniff food while I'm leaning far over a display etc. 

Lin- board member of the Assistance Dog Advocacy Project


----------



## DJEtzel

onyx'girl said:


> Looks like you have a stalker DJ....
> mskailuakona don't knock MI if you've never been there~ it really is a paradise peninsula...year round!


:O I hope not!!!


----------



## Mrs.K

How is a Service Dog supposed to become a Service Dog if you can't take him anywhere? It's pretty unrealistic if you think about it. 

As long as they have proper papers and they are allowed in that place it's neither your or my business. 

I take my dog anywhere I can as well and usually she has her "in training" vest on. If people ask if she is a service dog I say "No!" a Search&Rescue dog is not a Service Dog. They are classified as "Dogs of Service" (at least that is what the County Clerk said) but a Service Dog is an entirely different thing. 

I ask politely if I can bring her in, if not, I don't make a fuzz about it and put her back into the car or go somewhere else.


----------



## Lin

Mrs.K said:


> As long as they have proper papers and they are allowed in that place it's neither your or my business.


Service dogs do not have papers. Businesses are not allowed to request papers/certification/special ID. Its easiest to compare a service dog to a wheelchair here. The public access rights are not actually on the dog, but for the person with a disability. It wouldn't be fair to expect a disabled person to carry paperwork with them at all times to be able to use their wheelchair in a store, and its equally unfair to require the disabled to carry paperwork at all times to use their service dog. In addition, not all service dogs HAVE paperwork/certifications. The law was written the way it was to allow the maximum benefit to the disabled. Acquiring a dog from an organization or paying for a service dog trained privately is not an option available to everyone. And so the federal laws allow the option of an owner trained service dog. 

Actually, it IS your business to know. Especially for employees etc. When places and their employees are educated about the law, it makes things smoother for all sides. Prevents places from being taken advantage of as well as causing less disruption to actual service dog owners. Someone abusing the laws hurts handlers just as much if not more than the stores that were abused. 

And as I've already explained, there are multiple training options for SDITs even in states where they do not have any public access automatically granted.


----------



## RogueRed26

Mrs.K said:


> I take my dog anywhere I can as well and usually she has her "in training" vest on. If people ask if she is a service dog I say "No!" a Search&Rescue dog is not a Service Dog. They are classified as "Dogs of Service" (at least that is what the County Clerk said) but a Service Dog is an entirely different thing.
> 
> I ask politely if I can bring her in, if not, I don't make a fuzz about it and put her back into the car or go somewhere else.


Same here.:thumbup: Texas has a "In Training. Please Do not distract" vest she wears when we hit any busy streets. I do not take her in stores unless I get permission first and I clarify that she is NOT a service dog, but a dog training to perfect her socialization skills. Some places say yes, while others no. At the riverwalk in San Antonio, there are alot of dog friendly restaurants. I ask beforehand if they are dog friendly, if yes, we dine at that place. I never force myself or pose as something I am not. I have morals, and I stick by them.

IMO some people just think that by simply putting on a vest on their dog, they should have the same right as an individual who needs a service animal, just to abuse the system, which in the end becomes flawed for those who truly need a service animal. I really think proper identification (which I think is already made) like an id tag that the service animal wears with the information would be much more fitting than requiring the inidvidual to carry papers. I know those who are tricky will try to still forge one, but I don't think they can forge ID numbers with information.


----------



## Mrs.K

They should have papers. They should have something that says that they are a properly trained service dog. I think it's a ridiculous and stupid rule that you can't ask for proper paper, especially because of all those imposers. What is so wrong about asking somebody for the paperwork?

If I show up on a search and claim my dog is a search dog, I better be able to back it up and show the proof, that she's certified, if I don't, I am not allowed on the search and maybe worse, banned from the team. 

If I sit behind the wheel of a car, I better be able to show proof that I have a drivers license. 

If I want to be a manager of a multibilion dollar firm, I better be able to show that I can do that job. 

The dog is doing a Job and has got to be rock solid on it, in any given situation. If I run a super-busy place, with lots of kids and music and had three idiots that tried to bring their dogs in and they went tabularasa because they were not service dogs, I'd like to see proof before I let anybody else in. Once they provided proof, and even if it is a little passport on the vest, they can pass. 

It would make things a lot easier for everybody. Service Dogs would be Service Dogs and everybody else, trying to impose, would actually get a red card and could be prosecuted much easier. 



Lin said:


> Service dogs do not have papers. Businesses are not allowed to request papers/certification/special ID. Its easiest to compare a service dog to a wheelchair here. The public access rights are not actually on the dog, but for the person with a disability. It wouldn't be fair to expect a disabled person to carry paperwork with them at all times to be able to use their wheelchair in a store, and its equally unfair to require the disabled to carry paperwork at all times to use their service dog. In addition, not all service dogs HAVE paperwork/certifications. The law was written the way it was to allow the maximum benefit to the disabled. Acquiring a dog from an organization or paying for a service dog trained privately is not an option available to everyone. And so the federal laws allow the option of an owner trained service dog.
> 
> Actually, it IS your business to know. Especially for employees etc. When places and their employees are educated about the law, it makes things smoother for all sides. Prevents places from being taken advantage of as well as causing less disruption to actual service dog owners. Someone abusing the laws hurts handlers just as much if not more than the stores that were abused.
> 
> And as I've already explained, there are multiple training options for SDITs even in states where they do not have any public access automatically granted.


----------



## Lin

You do not have to have anything special to purchase a service dog ID. However purchasing one and using it without your dog actually being a service dog is a type of fraud and can be punished quite severely. 

I have a service dog ID. I use it to make things simpler and avoid confrontations when I'm out. But IDs are the same thing as certification papers, you cannot be required to carry them. A state may request you carry them, but that would be to be able to use any further protection under state law. You can't claim extra protection by the state if you haven't met the states guidelines. But if you aren't looking for extra protection, you are not required due to federal law saying it cannot be required. 

I keep the service dog ID clipped to the bags that fit over Tessa's harness. The other day I was out to pick up something purchased off craigslist, and on the way home my roommate and I decided to stop at Menards. I did not have the bags with me, so did not have Tessa's ID. As my service dog, she still accompanied me in to the store.


----------



## Mrs.K

And that is why there should be a national standardization what a Service Dog should be like. 

It's one of the States biggest issues that they do not have standardized tests for Service Dogs, or many other things that should be actually standardized. 

You have got to admit that it would make much more sense if there was a Standard in place, throughout the US, nobody could impose as a Service Dog anymore. Everybody would have to abide by the same rules and the Service Dog Vests should only be available if you passed that test. 

Just like with heartworm, you can't get the medication if you don't have the prescription. If you can provide that little piece of paper that you have passed the test, you get that nice and shiny Service Dog Vest. 

If not... well too bad...


----------



## Lin

Mrs.K said:


> They should have papers. They should have something that says that they are a properly trained service dog. I think it's a ridiculous and stupid rule that you can't ask for proper paper, especially because of all those imposers. What is so wrong about asking somebody for the paperwork?
> 
> If I show up on a search and claim my dog is a search dog, I better be able to back it up and show the proof, that she's certified, if I don't, I am not allowed on the search and maybe worse, banned from the team.
> 
> If I sit behind the wheel of a car, I better be able to show proof that I have a drivers license.
> 
> If I want to be a manager of a multibilion dollar firm, I better be able to show that I can do that job. ...
> 
> It would make things a lot easier for everybody. Service Dogs would be Service Dogs and everybody else, trying to impose, would actually get a red card and could be prosecuted much easier.


Actually no, it would not make things easier. It would make things a lot more difficult for the person with a disability. The ADA is a civil law for the purpose of helping the disabled have equal rights and opportunities as the non disabled. 

To understand the way the law is written it is easiest to consider the service dog a piece of medical equipment. This is why access cannot be declined, because it would be discrimination to require someone leave their wheelchair or oxygen tank behind when entering a store. Service dogs have no rights when they are not accompanied by their disabled hander. The handler has the rights, not the dog. A husband could not bring his disabled wife's service dog into a store without the disabled wife. 

Your drivers license example is untrue, but a moot point because its a completely different scenario. Being promoted to a job or driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Being able to take care of yourself on a daily basis including the minimum of functions to walk, talk, breathe, and so forth are rights. A service dog is for the severely disabled that have at least one major function of life severely limited. The service dog's job is to bring the individual the independence to be able to function on a level similarly to the non disabled. 

If service dogs were required to be tested federally and then carry identification, who do you propose pay for this? How many testing centers would be required in such a large country? Do you propose taxes be increased to build these centers and pay the employees, or that the disabled individual who is quite possibly living off disability payments pay? How do we get the disabled individual to the testing center for their service dog to be tested? Must the individual pay their own transportation, or will taxes pay for this as well? 

The topic of a federal certification has come up again and again on this forum. Anyone interested could bring up many threads with the search function. At this current time, we do not have a solution to these problems. So to simply everything I say again: the law was written the way it was to provide the maximum protection for the person with a disability.


----------



## Mrs.K

> If service dogs were required to be tested federally and then carry identification, who do you propose pay for this? How many testing centers would be required in such a large country? Do you propose taxes be increased to build these centers and pay the employees, or that the disabled individual who is quite possibly living off disability payments pay? How do we get the disabled individual to the testing center for their service dog to be tested? Must the individual pay their own transportation, or will taxes pay for this as well?


\

You know what, for that, I'd happily pay higher taxes. Because it makes sense! It's a good tax I'd not think twice to vote for, unfortunately I can't vote. 

However, it's really not as hard as you think to have a dog undergo testing. 

If you have standards in place, people can be trained by knowledgeable people and it could all be on volunteer basis. You think anybody is paid when they test a S&R dog? 

There is always a way. The problem is that people are so comfortable in the old ways that they don't look at left or right. 

There shouldn't be all those loopholes for people to impose their pets as a service dog. 

And even if it's just the vest itself that is the proof that they passed a certain test. That Vest should not be available to the general public. That alone would solve a big problem.


----------



## Lin

Mrs.K said:


> You have got to admit that it would make much more sense if there was a Standard in place, throughout the US, nobody could impose as a Service Dog anymore. Everybody would have to abide by the same rules and the Service Dog Vests should only be available if you passed that test.


No, I don't. I strongly disagree. 

As for standard, there IS a standard of behavior in place. Its just there is no federal certification to assure that every service dog meets these standards. Anyone who takes a dog out who does not is putting themselves at risk of being sued by the business as well as possibly prosecuted for fraud. 

As a disabled individual, my dog helps me so much on a daily basis. I am able to be much more functional due to her assistance, and closer to living a "normal" life. I went the route of an owner trained service dog. I am not independently wealthy and could not pay 20-30,000 for a privately trained service dog. I have a breed selection, not wanting a non GSD service dog. I have another dog in my home. Most organizations that place SDs for little to no cost to the disabled do not use GSDs anymore. And those that do, all require you have no other dogs in the home. I am not willing to rehome my other dog for a service dog. There are also many people who already have 3,4, or more dogs in the home. If one of these dogs is a candidate for service dog work, it makes much more sense than trying to integrate a 4th or 5th dog into the home. Especially since those that are disabled frequently make much less money from difficulties working. 

You consider the way the laws are written to be the downside, myself and many others consider them to be the upside. The laws are written the way they have been written to provide the maximum protection to the disabled. I am grateful on a daily basis to be living in the US and having the protection I have here.


----------



## Lin

Mrs.K said:


> \
> 
> You know what, for that, I'd happily pay higher taxes. Because it makes sense! It's a good tax I'd not think twice to vote for, unfortunately I can't vote.
> 
> However, it's really not as hard as you think to have a dog undergo testing.
> 
> If you have standards in place, people can be trained by knowledgeable people and it could all be on volunteer basis. You think anybody is paid when they test a S&R dog?
> 
> There is always a way. The problem is that people are so comfortable in the old ways that they don't look at left or right.
> 
> There shouldn't be all those loopholes for people to impose their pets as a service dog.
> 
> And even if it's just the vest itself that is the proof that they passed a certain test. That Vest should not be available to the general public. That alone would solve a big problem.


When you are able to convince everyone to pay higher taxes to implement such a system, or find enough volunteers please let me know. 

I keep repeating myself, but I really don't know how else to put it. They are not loopholes. The law is written the way it is to provide the maximum protection to the disabled. I can understand those that are not disabled not understanding this though. For example I also have a disabled parking permit. Many people do not understand the laws surrounding this, and consider me "lucky" to have one. Similarly people consider me "lucky" to be able to "bring my dog everywhere." But thats not what its about at all. And you truly don't see everything until you've been on both sides. The little intricacies can be difficult to explain. 

There is no special vest for service dogs. There are many types of vests. There are service dogs without vests. There are many types of working harness. There are service dogs without harnesses. There are non disabled that use vests for other reasons, such as a friend of mine that uses a vest with "allergies! do not treat!" on it for her dog in public. There are people who use dog harnesses for assistance only in the home and not public. There are people that make their own harnesses or vests. I was unable to find saddle bags for my dog that would work with her mobility harness, so I made custom bags myself. Its not so simple as to say do not sell vests unless they can prove the dog is a service dog.


----------



## Mrs.K

I don't say that you can't train your own dog anymore. All I am saying is that there should be a standardized test in place that gives you the privilege of buying a certain vest that can't be acquired by the general public. 

The testers could be volunteers, not charging anything, yet you can undergo your standardized test and get the SD Vest once your dog graduated. 

How you train your dog is up to you. All I am saying is that every service dog should have to undergo a test, just like S&R dogs, even Therapy Dogs are tested. 

So tell me, how comes that a Service Dog doesn't have to be tested? Especially when they have such an important job to do and have public access to any place. 

You can train them from home, by a trainer, friend... that doesn't matter, but the testing should be the same for any Service Dog out there. 

Plus it would solve a lot of liability issues on top of it...



> There is no special vest for service dogs. There are many types of vests. There are service dogs without vests. There are many types of working harness. There are service dogs without harnesses. There are non disabled that use vests for other reasons, such as a friend of mine that uses a vest with "allergies! do not treat!" on it for her dog in public. There are people who use dog harnesses for assistance only in the home and not public. There are people that make their own harnesses or vests. I was unable to find saddle bags for my dog that would work with her mobility harness, so I made custom bags myself. Its not so simple as to say do not sell vests unless they can prove the dog is a service dog.


Again, have a standard in place and you'll solve a lot of problems and confusion. And it actually is that simple. Just use a certain color that is only available to Service Dogs. There is ALWAYS a way. If you have a harness, saddlebags, whatever doesn't matter. The color alone could solve that problem. And it is possible. Don't tell me it isn't. There are countries out there that are proof enough.
And especially Service Dogs should be tested to the bone!


----------



## Lin

Therapy dogs are tested because they are being certified by specific organizations. Service dogs that are certified by specific organizations are tested as well. Certification for a therapy dog or service dog only means they met the qualifications of that specific training organization. That already exists. 

What does not, for either, is a federal certification. Again, when you get enough volunteers across the entire united states to test service dogs for free please let me know. The US is a very large country. Will these volunteers be willing to drive long distances to certify dogs in the homes of disabled individuals that cannot travel long distances? Or will there be enough volunteers in every single city to have them close enough? I realize how sarcastic this is probably sounding, but its not intentional. Its just it would be a much bigger project than most people think. 

And even if it was put together with taxes or volunteers, we still come back to the discrimination issue. Is it ok to require disabled individuals carry a type of federal certification for public access? Would it be ok for disabled individuals to be required to carry paperwork to enter a store in a wheelchair? If the individual forgets something at home, does that mean they can't enter a store? So, a disabled individual who already may have decreased energy and chronic pain cannot stop to make a quick stop on the way home but must return home and get paperwork and go back out? Even if this certification was required, it would still be only for public areas and not private. So if someone has permission for a private area (such as a friends home) they would either not be able to make an extra stop, or have to run home and go back out if they needed to do a quick errand. Just like my example earlier of stopping at menards. If ID was required I couldn't have stopped even though it was on my way home. It would have been days before I'd had a chance to pick up what I needed. And the disabled individual may have memory issues, in fact many service dogs alert reminders such as when its time to do certain things like take medicine. They may have issues remembering to bring proof everywhere. 

A special vest or special color... So, the disabled now have to be marked with a special color? They don't have the ability to choose their own? Many people have a lot of pleasure in these small personal choices. My forearm crutch is blue, I like it much better than plain grey. My service dog bags are blue, I like them better than the red ones. I know people that put decorative stickers all over crutches, canes, and wheelchairs. But now we have to be marked with a special color or special vest? 

The ADA is a civil rights law, not a criminal law. Its about the rights of the disabled. Service dogs are part of the ADA, so civil law. It really makes no sense to take away civil liberties to enforce a civil law if you strip it down to the bare bones.


----------



## martemchik

Yeah good luck getting the support for this organization, it just won't happen. There won't be a certification because it would be impossible to come up with one that covers every single type of service dog. Then getting volonteers to do this for free would pretty much be impossible. I'm just thinking of the volunteer that is going to tell a disabled person that their dog that they've been training for a year isn't good enough to pass the test, so sorry but they can't be certified. The reason TDI and the other certifications exist and are tested for is because they provide a certain assurance and the dog is then insured against small things, will this service organization insure that the dogs won't do any harm? Only when monetary loss is involved will there be some sort of certification/testing.


----------



## stealthq

Lin said:


> A special vest or special color... So, the disabled now have to be marked with a special color? They don't have the ability to choose their own? Many people have a lot of pleasure in these small personal choices. My forearm crutch is blue, I like it much better than plain grey. My service dog bags are blue, I like them better than the red ones. I know people that put decorative stickers all over crutches, canes, and wheelchairs. But now we have to be marked with a special color or special vest?
> 
> The ADA is a civil rights law, not a criminal law. Its about the rights of the disabled. Service dogs are part of the ADA, so civil law. It really makes no sense to take away civil liberties to enforce a civil law if you strip it down to the bare bones.


I find this thread very interesting - lots of things I had not considered before. Just a thought - let's assume for the moment that some form of ID were required (I know, it's not) - what about making a special tag for the dog's collar/harness like the usual registration tags? If designed to be so, it would be unobtrusive - even invisible if you put it behind the dogs name/registration tags, always on the dog, and hard to forget.


----------



## wildo

Lin said:


> And even if it was put together with taxes or volunteers, we still come back to the discrimination issue. Is it ok to require disabled individuals carry a type of federal certification for public access? Would it be ok for disabled individuals to be required to carry paperwork to enter a store in a wheelchair? If the individual forgets something at home, does that mean they can't enter a store? So, a disabled individual who already may have decreased energy and chronic pain cannot stop to make a quick stop on the way home but must return home and get paperwork and go back out? Even if this certification was required, it would still be only for public areas and not private.


This is such an interesting, complicated subject. On one hand, I can't help but to think of driver's licenses. As far as I know, that is also covered under civil laws. As you mention, Lin, driving is a privilege. The ability to drive legally is marked soley in an identification card- your license. Because of this, I see no issue in requiring someone to have to have a license to participate in other civil privileges such as entering a store with your service animal. That's not discrimination. There are already things in place (driver's license) that use a model like this. If you forget your license at home and go for a drive- that's illegal. I don't see any reason it would need to be different for some kind of service animal license. If you know you are going out- then you better grab your SA license. That's pretty easy... People do it every day with their driver's license.

On the other hand, it gets interesting when you view the service animal as equipment only. Of course you wouldn't ask someone to carry a license to use a wheel chair. I guess the difference is that a wheel chair is entirely predictable- it isn't alive. When it comes to SA, whether equipment or not, it's still a living animal and thus carries an amount of unpredictability.

So I'm torn. I think a standardized test (just like a driver's test) makes a lot of sense. But when you look at it as simply medical equipment- it gets blurry.
__________

I was gonna end there, but I just thought about medical marijuana. The people prescribed medical pot no doubt are required to have some physical paperwork or something so that they aren't arrested under possession. Maybe that's not the same since that would be a drug, not a piece of equipment. Still- I think the analogy fits. They are required to carry something on account of their illness in order to allow them to participate in the benefits of their treatment. Is not that discrimination?


----------



## Greydusk

Interesting thread!

From the business side, when I see someone walk in to the restaurant where I work with their dog, I'd say 90% aren't service dogs. Some have vests, some don't, most are straining on their leash or shaking in the purse that they're confined. I don't ever ask if it's a service animal, nobody does, there's no real point. The answer will always be yes even though it's clearly not, so what's the point? It's kind of a joke really, like anyone is going to take the time and money to take someone to court for that? We know that they're impersonating a service dog, but we can't do much about it unless the dog starts acting up in which case we can ask them to put their dog back into their car.


----------



## Mrs.K

Greydusk said:


> Interesting thread!
> 
> From the business side, when I see someone walk in to the restaurant where I work with their dog, I'd say 90% aren't service dogs. Some have vests, some don't, most are straining on their leash or shaking in the purse that they're confined. I don't ever ask if it's a service animal, nobody does, there's no real point. The answer will always be yes even though it's clearly not, so what's the point? It's kind of a joke really, like anyone is going to take the time and money to take someone to court for that? We know that they're impersonating a service dog, but we can't do much about it unless the dog starts acting up in which case we can ask them to put their dog back into their car.


What if one of those dogs bites the staff or a visitor? 

Than it's another "so called" service dog in the news that bit somebody.


----------



## martemchik

Tags wouldn't work because they would be way too easy to replicate, and is every business owner going to look up the ID number on the tag in order to make sure that its valid. The only time you would get in trouble for it is if a police officer decided to ask, and even then what reason would they have for asking?


----------



## Lin

It most definitely is worth it to ask if its a service dog. If they say yes, then you can ask what type of service dog it is and for 2 service tasks that the dog performs to mitigate the handlers disability. If they are unable to answer this, you can deny them access. If they try to sue you (which is not going to happen if they are faking) you did nothing wrong. If it goes to court, they will have to prove to the judge that they are disabled and legally disabled as well as their dogs training as a service dog such as with detailed logs as well as performing service tasks on command for the judge. This is what I mean when I say that knowing the laws protects yourself. Asking these simple questions can tell you if the person is faking. And if they arent, answering these simple questions is of no bother to the handler. But being followed around a store, shot dirty looks, given poor service because employees were burnt by a faking dog ARE a bother. 

I've mentioned it before, but I've been on both sides of this issue. I've been able to determine someone was faking with claimed service dogs when I was the manager of a building. 

A civil right is one that protects freedom such as from discrimination. Driving is not a civil right. Transportation in the form of walking would be a civil right. Operating a piece of machinery such as a car or semi trailer is a privilege. So carrying a drivers license cannot be compared to carrying a service dog ID. Entering a public place is a right, not a privilege. 

The ADA as a civil rights law prevents discrimination due to disability. To qualify under the ADA, you must be substantially limited in one or more "major life functions." These include "functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working." When it comes to public access for SDs, the access is NOT on the dog. The access is on the part of the disabled person. If the dog is not accompanied by the disabled person, they may not enter anywhere pets are not allowed. This is for the same reason you cannot deny admittance to someone in a wheelchair. It would be discrimination on the part of being disabled. 

A drivers license is not required to perform major life functions. You can walk, take a bus, be driven around by someone else and so forth. Not having a drivers license does not disrupt a deaf person's ability to care for themself. However if you're deaf, a hearing dog could mean life or death in the instance of a fire alarm. A person assisting the deaf individual could do the job, and a person carrying around a paralyzed person could do the job. But then they are dependent on others to complete major life activities. Service dogs and adaptive equipment assist in these major life activities. That is why the ADA protects the individual's right to use a service animal, as well as their right to not be denied housing or entrance due to a wheelchair. A wheelchair can cause damage to carpet, but a landlord cannot deny a wheelchair user housing. If damage to the carpet happened, it would be the responsibility of the person who caused it regardless of if it was due to a SD, wheelchair, or non disabled individual spilling something.

So if its ok to require identification to protect civil rights and we require the disabled to carry identification on their service dog or wheelchair, do we force the homosexual to carry identification as well? Protection of sexual orientation from discrimination is a civil right. 

Wait, I've got it. There's a solution for those issues of not carrying your certification or ID with you. We can start tattooing the disabled forearms, then they will always have it with them!


----------



## ILGHAUS

Lin and I have been trying to get a few basic concepts across to help people understand. Yes, I know it is hard to get your minds around and does take a lot of research and thought. Always helps to have someone guide you through the maze. 

ADA is a Civil Rights Law. 

Service Dogs have no rights under the ADA or the Dept. of Justice.

All rights of Public Access belong to the disabled handler and none to the dog. 

A Service dog is only one with its disabled handler or its trainer. 
Disabled Handler + Dog trained to mitigate disability of owner handler *= Service Dog*
Handler (spouse or friend of Disabled Handler) + Dog trained to mitigate disability of owner handler does *not = Service Dog*

Per some laws a SD is not an animal/pet but a piece of medical equipment. Some such as following local or state vac. requirements etc. a SD is then an animal/pet. Different circumstances are covered by different laws.

Drivers Licenses are not under Civil Law - they are under criminal law (state statutes). Drive without one and you can end up in jail. You will not be arrested for breaking a Civil Law. _(Here is where people have examples where people were arrested but no they were not arrested for breaking a civil law. They were arrested for breaking an additional law such as trespassing or in violation of a court order.)_ Some states by their statutes allow the forfeiture of a DL when breaking another law, civil or state.


----------



## Mrs.K

Than take glasses for an instance. 

Every single person has to take an eye sight test and if you don't pass, you have to get your eyes checked before you can take your drivers license test and it will be put into your drivers license that you have to wear them. 

Isn't that discriminating against people who wear glasses? That you are labeled as a person that has an eye sight problem and might even have to take out a contact to proof that s/he is wearing them? 

I can't understand your kind of logic because I don't look at it as a discrimination, I look at it as protection of your rights. 

And what difference does a certain color make? If you chose to put "Service Dog" on your dogs vest or backpack, it labels you as a disabled person of some kind. So what difference does a certain color make?


----------



## Lin

Mrs.K said:


> I can't understand your kind of logic because I don't look at it as a discrimination, I look at it as protection of your rights.


Well thats part of the problem, because the law looks at it as discrimination so you need to be able to understand that to understand the law.

And again, a drivers license is not a civil right. So you can't compare a drivers license to a civil right. You have to jump through hoops to get privileges. You need to pass an eye test, you need to pass the written test. But you do not need to pass a test to be allowed to shop at your local grocery store. To be forced to do so is impinging on your civil rights. 


> And what difference does a certain color make? If you chose to put "Service Dog" on your dogs vest or backpack, it labels you as a disabled person of some kind. So what difference does a certain color make?


Because its taking rights away. I should be free to choose what color car I want, what color crutch I use, or what color I think looks best on my dog for a harness or saddle bags. From now on should we require that the only color purse a woman is allowed to use is brown? I do not carry a purse, my dogs saddlebags are my purse. If I am required to use a specific color saddlebags to be allowed to shop, its no different than for you to be required to use a specific color purse if you want to shop. But I don't think everyone is going to band together and vote that from now on black purses aren't allowed in public places.


----------



## chudsosoft

What you are failing to grasp is that going to the store, walking down the street, and eating at a restaurant are rights. Driving a car is not. A car is a piece of heavy machinery. You are under no obligation to carry identification with you.

*Occasions when the law REQUIRES you to present ID:*

Drive a car (a piece of deadly heavy machinery)
Enter a bar or other age-restricted area
Purchase alcohol or other age-restricted product
Enter an airport or other secure area

*ID Optional:*

Crutches
Wheelchairs
Wearing glasses
Portable oxygen concentrators
Service animals

As it is and AS IT SHOULD BE.


----------



## Mrs.K

And that is the problem. The Service Dog would actually be protected and nobody could impersonate it anymore. 

If you are disabled and drive a car you have to have a disability tag in your window in order to part in the disability spot. 
So you are pretty much labeled too... 

Things would be a lot easier if everybody wouldn't scream discrimination at ever tiny little thing. 

Seriously. At one point you scream at those who impersonate service dogs but on the other hand you are not trying to make it any harder for them to actually claim their pets as service dogs.


----------



## wildo

chudsosoft said:


> What you are failing to grasp is that going to the store, walking down the street, and eating at a restaurant are rights. Driving a car is not. A car is a piece of heavy machinery. You are under no obligation to carry identification with you.


I wasn't trying to start some big heated controversy (I think were well past that- even though the thread has stayed pretty civil). I thought the driver's license thing was a good _analogy_, that is- something that is follows a similar thought pattern but is not physically the same.

Even so, I don't understand your logic in the quote above. Apparently, according to the ADA law, a service animal is just as much a piece of equipment as is an oxygen tank, dialysis machine, or yes- a car. Equipment is equipment. You can't have it both ways. Either it's an animal with potentially unpredictable behavior, or it is a piece of equipment. There are many areas in life where equipment must be licensed.

I understand the whole "discrimination" claim. I get it. I just am not sure I agree with it, logically speaking- that is. Then again, I only know as much about it as what has been discussed on this board.

I know that if I was writing the system as a computer program, I'd define a base class called "equipment," with two derived classes called "car" and "service animal." Logically speaking, equipment is equipment- there is no middle ground there.

...errr- point being- I don't think it is necessarily discrimination to require equipment (of any kind) to be registered.


----------



## stealthq

martemchik said:


> Tags wouldn't work because they would be way too easy to replicate, and is every business owner going to look up the ID number on the tag in order to make sure that its valid. The only time you would get in trouble for it is if a police officer decided to ask, and even then what reason would they have for asking?


So is a driver's license. I can buy a fake one without much problem. There are technologies that can be used to make it harder - hologram, embedded chip, etc. I don't see why a service dog couldn't be registered so a business owner can look it up - note, I'm not saying the person should be registered or that any of their info should be available, just the dog's. I wouldn't expect any business owner would ask or look it up unless they thought the dog was not legit through inappropriate behaviour, etc.

Another option would be a tattoo on the dog with special ink, whatever. Just something to prove that the dog has been tested (if it were required, and again, I know it's not).


----------



## Liesje

For those who want this "test".....who gives this test? What authority to they have? How is the dog pass/failed? WHAT is tested? I mean, we have Service Dogs who need public access rights, SDs who don't leave the home and don't need that type of training, SDs who carry medical supplies and are trained to alert, SDs who can lead people away from danger, SDs who retrieve objects, SDs who predict seizures.... must ALL SDs be able to perform ALL tasks in order to be "certified"?


----------



## chudsosoft

wildo said:


> I know that if I was writing the system as a computer program, I'd define a base class called "equipment," with two derived classes called "car" and "service animal." Logically speaking, equipment is equipment- there is no middle ground there.
> 
> ...errr- point being- I don't think it is necessarily discrimination to require equipment (of any kind) to be registered.


I see your point. To elaborate, an automobile is a piece of heavy machinery that is easily capable of killing people and destroying property. The use of one is rightly regulated. The use of a crutch or a wheelchair or a service animal is no comparison.

I wouldn't expect to be harassed for identification simply so I could enjoy the freedom of going to the store. Would you? Sound reasonable? Hey, you can't shop here unless you prove to me that you're crippled. Show me your ID or you can't sit on that park bench. No wheelchairs allowed in this restaurant without proper registration. I'm using hyperbole here, I admit. But it's a matter of principle.

The answer is not registration or identification. If owners of service dogs conform voluntarily to their own standards and if the public is similarly educated on what to look for and expect (just as we all are with people in wheelchairs, people who use crutches, carry oxygen, wear glasses, etc.), there will be no problem. It's a matter of spreading the word.


----------



## Lin

Mrs.K said:


> Seriously. At one point you scream at those who impersonate service dogs but on the other hand you are not trying to make it any harder for them to actually claim their pets as service dogs.


No, what we are doing is not making it harder for disabled individuals to be able to use service dogs. Since you have this viewpoint, I assume its ok to throw innocent people in jail as long as the guilty end up there too? Because thats essential the issue here. To change the laws is to punish the law abiding individuals. The current laws are more of the "better to let 10 guilty men go free than punish one innocent man" variety. But to change the laws is to remove the freedoms of the disabled individuals. 

Yes, I "scream" about individuals who impersonate service dogs. But the answer is not punishing the law abiding ones in the process of catching those breaking the laws. The answer I scream for is education. But this thread is a perfect example of how often that is ignored. Someone mentioned that it wasn't worth it to ask if a service dog was an actual service dog and so they don't. Yes, it is ALWAYS worth it to ask. No service dog handler is going to get upset from the simple questions of if their dog is a service dog and what their dog does for them. If they do, well they need to go educate themselves better on the laws and their rights before being in public anyway. And if the people are unable to answer the questions you can deny access and have covered your bases with nothing to fear. 

I guess you can never say this too often, education protects both sides. When businesses know their rights they are able to protect themselves against those breaking the law as well as make things go more smoothly for legitimate service dog teams.



wildo said:


> Apparently, according to the ADA law, a service animal is just as much a piece of equipment as is an oxygen tank, dialysis machine, or yes- a car. Equipment is equipment. You can't have it both ways. Either it's an animal with potentially unpredictable behavior, or it is a piece of equipment. There are many areas in life where equipment must be licensed.


In the eyes of the law, a service dog is medical equipment. 



wildo said:


> ...errr- point being- I don't think it is necessarily discrimination to require equipment (of any kind) to be registered.


It is, when equipment is required to perform major life functions. A car is not required to perform major life functions. A service dog is. 



Liesje said:


> For those who want this "test".....who gives this test? What authority to they have? How is the dog pass/failed? WHAT is tested? I mean, we have Service Dogs who need public access rights, SDs who don't leave the home and don't need that type of training, SDs who carry medical supplies and are trained to alert, SDs who can lead people away from danger, SDs who retrieve objects, SDs who predict seizures.... must ALL SDs be able to perform ALL tasks in order to be "certified"?


There are minimum requirements when it comes to obedience and public access for a service dog. Training is broken up into 3 sections of obedience, public access, and service tasks. The service tasks are specific to the handler to mitigate their specific disability.


----------



## wildo

In the end, what is the goal here? I thought the goal was to protect service dog access and service dog handler rights by eliminating the intrusion and impersonation of service animals by non-service yielding teams.

If the dog (the DOG, _not_ the person) was registered, then this fixes that. It doesn't encroach on anyone's rights. It ensures that the people who are faking it are weeded out, and the true service animals are not affected by their negligence. It has nothing to do with how it affects the person- it's a registration on the dog alone. And really- to all those saying "but who would give the tests?? How would it be paid for??" well... who knows. I think people are just throwing forth ideas that could potentially eliminate the problem. Not sure anyone has written up an all encompassing proposal.

Someone mentioned- a car is a heavy piece of equipment that could kill a person if mishandled- a service animal is a dog that performs major life functions. I think both things are true, but the latter is hardly a response to the former. A GSD service animal (and more importantly- an imposter, non-service, animal) is certainly able to kill a person.

I have no problem what-so-ever with service animals, so don't take this the wrong way- I have every right to _not_ feel threatened by some dog in some random store, just like a disabled handler has every right to have a _legit_ service animal in the store. So it should not seem so "against the grain" for non-disabled folks to want a system in place to ensure the animals in the store are what the handlers say they are. I would hope you all can agree with that. I think it's fair to look at a person's rights from both perspectives...

(And I am not really saying that "fake service dogs" account for a large majority of dog bites- but in the end, that is exactly the kind of thing people should want to be aware of. The fake dogs shortcomings are what destroy the real service dogs' rights.)


----------



## Lin

wildo said:


> In the end, what is the goal here? I thought the goal was to protect service dog access and service dog handler rights by eliminating the intrusion and impersonation of service animals by non-service yielding teams.


The goal here is to avoid discrimination against the disabled. That is why the ADA was written. The goal is not, and has never been eliminating intrusion or impersonation. To do so would be a criminal law, while the ADA is a civil rights law. 



> If the dog (the DOG, _not_ the person) was registered, then this fixes that. It doesn't encroach on anyone's rights. It ensures that the people who are faking it are weeded out, and the true service animals are not affected by their negligence. It has nothing to do with how it affects the person- it's a registration on the dog alone. And really- to all those saying "but who would give the tests?? How would it be paid for??" well... who knows. I think people are just throwing forth ideas that could potentially eliminate the problem. Not sure anyone has written up an all encompassing proposal.


It falls upon the responsibility of the handler to register their service dog. As has already been said, its NOT the dog that has the public access rights but the disabled individual. To require certification to allow the disabled individual to use medical adaptive equipment DOES encroach on personal rights. This is why the ADA was written. To prevent from taking civil liberties away from the disabled. 

The suggestions do not eliminate the problem. And even if they did, they would bring problems of their own. This is why the questions. You cannot suggest a federal registration agency without explaining how it would be paid for. Its just not a reality for such a registry to be funded by taxes or strictly volunteer. To put the cost of such a thing on the disabled individual goes back to encroaching on civil rights. It is discrimination to require a person pay or acquire for certification to be able to use their wheelchair in public places. It is discrimination to require a person pay or acquire certification to be able to use their service dog in public places. 

Suggesting what could fix the problem is a moot point of its not possible to implement it. We could come up with all sorts of ideas to solve the problem. If they can't be implemented its pointless. 



> Someone mentioned- a car is a heavy piece of equipment that could kill a person if mishandled- a service animal is a dog that performs major life functions. I think both things are true, but the latter is hardly a response to the former. A GSD service animal (and more importantly- an imposter, non-service, animal) is certainly able to kill a person.


It is a response. A car was brought up into the conversation by suggestion that the disabled should carry certification or government ID to prove their dogs status as a SD because a license is required by law. But driving a car is not a civil right. It is a privilege and not guaranteed. Our constitution gives us civil rights. Requiring a certification or ID to be able to use a service dog in public is taking away from the civil rights of the disabled individual. You absolutely cannot compare a drivers license to a service dog ID.



> I have no problem what-so-ever with service animals, so don't take this the wrong way- I have every right to _not_ feel threatened by some dog in some random store, just like a disabled handler has every right to have a _legit_ service animal in the store.


You should not feel threatened by a service dog. And if people would educate themselves on the laws and what can and cannot be asked they can determine of a dog is a service dog or not and deny access. If someone had such a severe fear of dogs that it qualified as a disability (or similarly an allergy that qualified as a disability) the business or other public place would be required to make accommodations for both. One does not trump another and give reason to deny access. 



wildo said:


> So it should not seem so "against the grain" for non-disabled folks to want a system in place to ensure the animals in the store are what the handlers say they are. I would hope you all can agree with that. I think it's fair to look at a person's rights from both perspectives...


As I've already mentioned in this thread, I do consider both perspectives as I've been on both perspectives. And have denied access to fake service dogs. Education is key. It benefits everyone. Disabled handlers do NOT want to make things harder for the business owners. That is the opposite of what we want because it hurts us too. No one wants to be harassed in a store, followed around, denied access for no reason, and so forth because someone came through with a fake service dog and caused problems. This is why we go out and educate the public and advocate for everyone to know their rights and the laws. It protects both sides.


----------



## beaderdog

> I can't understand your kind of logic because I don't look at it as a discrimination, I look at it as protection of your rights.


How does putting another roadblock in the way of disabled persons protect their rights? Testing would add a major roadblock. Where is the testing to be done & how are disabled persons going to get there? Who's going to pay for it? Who's going to do it? What standards will be used? Are you going to require that the disabled person present proof of his/her disability? How long do you suppose it will be before someone who wants to "protect" disabled persons decides all service dogs must be trained by organizations? 

The ADA is pretty clear about what a business can or cannot ask, and as has been pointed out, if they take the trouble to do so they can weed out most of the imposters. Some of them won't do that, for whatever reason - that's on _them_, not on those of us who are disabled & have service dogs. If businesses won't protect their own rights, they have very little room to complain AFAIC.


----------



## Mrs.K

> It is, when equipment is required to perform major life functions. A car is not required to perform major life functions. A service dog is.


I bet you that all machines in the hospital have gone through thouroughly testing to ensure that the machines are no threat. Medication undergoes testing, or at least it should be. I know that especially in Germany any kind of medication has to undergo several testings before it's allowed on our markets. 

Tell me, if medication, all those machines in the hospital, EVEN STAFF(!!!!) has to undergo all kinds of tests, exams and whatnot. Why is it that a Service Dog can't do it because it's discriminating?

A doctor has to perform life saving functions, would you want somebody that has studied for 10 years and underwent the exam or somebody that had only so many hours of experience and then send in because testing would be discriminating. 

A first responder has to undergo a test too. Everything and everybody has to be tested but because you are disabled it's discriminating that your dog is tested? 

Sorry, but to me that is a bunch of BS! 

Testing a Service Dog has NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with discrimination towards you or anybody else!

It's a test about the dogs performance, if the dog is stable and sound in the environment and no threat to the public and that is how it should be.


----------



## Lin

Mrs.K said:


> Testing a Service Dog has NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with discrimination towards you or anybody else!


Yes, it does. But I've already tried to explain that in so many different ways. Maybe someone else can explain it in a way you can understand. 

I don't know how else to say an apple is an apple, an orange is an orange, and an apple is not an orange.


----------



## Mrs.K

> In the eyes of the law, a service dog is medical equipment.


Show me one piece of medical equipment that hasn't been tested! 
It all undergoes a certain test to ensure the performance and the safety of the patient. And a Service Dog should undergo a certain amount of testing too! 

So you can't really say that it's discrimination because it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do without.


----------



## ILGHAUS

> And really- to all those saying "but who would give the tests?? How would it be paid for??" well... who knows. I think people are just throwing forth ideas that could potentially eliminate the problem. Not sure anyone has written up an all encompassing proposal.


This is something that is discussed and discussed and has been for a period of time. In the general population it is not a high point of concern. Yes, people read an article and respond in the interactive section in their local e-paper and sometimes people participate in threads such as this from time to time. BUT, how many people go from here and try to follow through with their ideas? When was the last time anyone (other than our SD handlers) read one of these threads and took it upon themself to research the law further and then contacted their local Representative or Senator and asked for a change in their State Law? 

There is a movement in the SD community to look into this matter but it is slow going. People with disabilities usually don't have the funds (over half live at or below the national proverty level) or the means to travel to lobby for changes. That saying, it is usually a section of PWDs who use SDs who are the most concerned with fakers and their dogs or with PWDs with dogs that are not suitable or undertrained for the work. 

The ADA just underwent changes which finally went into effect March 15, 2011. For over a year the general public, a multitude of agencies, and disability organizations were invited to submit their concerns and suggestions. I don't look for such an opportunity to come again on the Federal level for the next revisions anytime in the near future as the ADA was 20 years old before this the first revision. 

On the other hand, the opportunity for a change on the state level comes up every year.


----------



## wildo

Lin said:


> The goal here is to avoid discrimination against the disabled. That is why the ADA was written. The goal is not, and has never been eliminating intrusion or impersonation. To do so would be a criminal law, while the ADA is a civil rights law.


Wait... what? No. The issue that many in this thread were arguing is how to weed out the impersonators without infringing on the rights of the disabled. We most certainly _were_ discussing elimination of impersonators as a goal.



> It falls upon the responsibility of the handler to register their service dog. As has already been said, its NOT the dog that has the public access rights but the disabled individual. To require certification to allow the disabled individual to use medical adaptive equipment DOES encroach on personal rights. This is why the ADA was written. To prevent from taking civil liberties away from the disabled.
> 
> The suggestions do not eliminate the problem. And even if they did, they would bring problems of their own. This is why the questions. You cannot suggest a federal registration agency without explaining how it would be paid for. Its just not a reality for such a registry to be funded by taxes or strictly volunteer. To put the cost of such a thing on the disabled individual goes back to encroaching on civil rights. It is discrimination to require a person pay or acquire for certification to be able to use their wheelchair in public places. It is discrimination to require a person pay or acquire certification to be able to use their service dog in public places.
> 
> Suggesting what could fix the problem is a moot point of its not possible to implement it. We could come up with all sorts of ideas to solve the problem. If they can't be implemented its pointless.


The biggest roadblock to innovation is complacency. Did you realize that the phrase "think outside the box" is actually an application of the practice of questioning the assumptions? There is a game with a box with nine large dots (in a 3x3 grid) on the inside of the box. The goal of the game is to connect all of the dots in as few line segments as possible without lifting your pencil. One very good answer is to have three slightly diagonal lines that each connects the top three, middle three, and bottom three dots. The lines _extend way outside the box_ until they intersect each other (thus not breaking the rule of lifting the pencil). The idea of the phrase came about by questioning the assumptions. An assumption was made that you couldn't draw outside the box, thus limiting your ability to complete the game. Innovation comes through questioning assumptions- by thinking outside the box. When you think that the laws are "good enough" yet there is a large spectrum of people who break the law all the time through impersonation of a service dog- then perhaps the laws are _not_ good enough. There is certainly no harm in throwing around ideas that could potentially create better, more enforceable laws. There is no respected body in the world that demands every loose end to be tied in new ideas. That's silly.



> It is a response. A car was brought up into the conversation by suggestion that the disabled should carry certification or government ID to prove their dogs status as a SD because a license is required by law. But driving a car is not a civil right. It is a privilege and not guaranteed. Our constitution gives us civil rights. *Requiring a certification or ID to be able to use a service dog in public is taking away from the civil rights of the disabled individual.* You absolutely cannot compare a drivers license to a service dog ID.


Not it's not. It's not because it wouldn't be a requirement that the person have the certification or Id, it would be a requirement that the dog have the Id. Nobody is saying you can't use a service dog- their saying you can't use an unlicensed service dog. Since your service dog _actually is_ a real service dog- you'd have no problem getting the certificate (under such a system). That's not discrimination.



> You should not feel threatened by a service dog. And if people would educate themselves on the laws and what can and cannot be asked they can determine of a dog is a service dog or not and deny access. If someone had such a severe fear of dogs that it qualified as a disability (or similarly an allergy that qualified as a disability) the business or other public place would be required to make accommodations for both. One does not trump another and give reason to deny access.


I never said I was threatened by a service dog. I said that since I have no way to know if a service dog _actually is_ a service dog or not- I could potentially feel threatened by a vicious dog attempted to be passed off as a service dog. Under such a system where there was actually a certificate or registration for "real" service dogs- such situations would be drastically (if not entirely) reduced.

[EDIT]- the box game. It's pretty interesting...


----------



## beaderdog

> since I have no way to know if a service dog actually is a service dog or not- I could potentially feel threatened by a vicious dog attempted to be passed off as a service dog. Under such a system where there was actually a certificate or registration for "real" service dogs- such situations would be drastically (if not entirely) reduced.


If you are in a place of business, it would be the responsibility of the business to make sure that the dog in question is a service dog, not an imposter. The business can do so by exercising its right to ask the handler appropriate questions. If you feel the business is not fulfilling its responsibility, take it up with the business & their legal department. It's the business owner's responsibility to make sure you're safe.


----------



## Mrs.K

beaderdog said:


> If you are in a place of business, it would be the responsibility of the business to make sure that the dog in question is a service dog, not an imposter. The business can do so by exercising its right to ask the handler appropriate questions. If you feel the business is not fulfilling its responsibility, take it up with the business & their legal department. It's the business owner's responsibility to make sure you're safe.


How, how is it their responsibility if it is illegal to ask about certification in the first place? 

They are not allowed to request any kind of information about the service animal, if I got that right, so they can't ask!


----------



## chudsosoft

Cars, prescription drugs, and handler-trained service animals aren't comparable. Every last one of your arguments assume that they are.

Asking _anybody_ to register their *fill-in-the-blank* for the purposes of mollifying the ignorant is _wrong_. Period. Perhaps it would be safer if every service dog were thoroughly tested, inspected, registered, stamped, sealed and licensed. It would also be safer if we all had to be strip searched to leave the house. Registrations, identifications, and yet more paperwork, in general, are an *undue burden* on the people who would be required to have them.

I regard certain behaviors as being dangerous, and by your line of thinking I should move to require that people pass an IQ test in order to enter a public space. It's all in the name of safety. We have to get our eyes tested to drive, right? The FDA inspects drug factories, so, maybe they should also inspect my dog's butt and my IQ. You know, just to make sure we're all safe.


----------



## chudsosoft

Mrs.K said:


> How, how is it their responsibility if it is illegal to ask about certification in the first place?
> 
> They are not allowed to request any kind of information about the service animal, if I got that right, so they can't ask!


Not only is this not the case, it's been said here in this very thread more than once. I'm saying it again just for you. * It's not illegal to ask what the animal is for. * In fact, you're encouraged to do so. It's the only way to weed out the imposters. Educating you on this and other facts is the goal of this thread, so that your ideas regarding the national cripple database don't spread too far.


----------



## ILGHAUS

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

From the U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Disability Rights Section 
Americans with Disabilities Act

ADA Business BRIEF: Service Animals

Service animals are animals that are individually trained to perform tasks for people with disabilities such as guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling wheelchairs, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, or performing other special tasks. Service animals are working animals, not pets. 

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), businesses and organizations that serve the public must allow people with disabilities to bring their service animals into all areas of the facility where customers are normally allowed to go. This federal law applies to all businesses open to the public, including restaurants, hotels, taxis and shuttles, grocery and department stores, hospitals and medical offices, theaters, health clubs, parks, and zoos.

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.

People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be charged extra fees, isolated from other patrons, or treated less favorably than other patrons. However, if a business such as a hotel normally charges guests for damage that they cause, a customer with a disability may be charged for damage caused by his or her service animal.

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.

In these cases, the business should give the person with the disability the option to obtain goods and services without having the animal on the premises.

Businesses that sell or prepare food must allow service animals in public areas even if state or local health codes prohibit animals on the premises.

A business is not required to provide care or food for a service animal or provide a special location for it to relieve itself.

Allergies and fear of animals are generally not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people with service animals.

Violators of the ADA can be required to pay money damages and penalties.

Service animals are individually trained to perform tasks for people with disabilities.

If you have additional questions concerning the ADA and service animals, please call the Department's ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383 (TTY) or visit the ADA Business Connection at ada.gov.

Duplication is encouraged. April 2002


----------



## Mrs.K

chudsosoft said:


> Not only is this not the case, it's been said here in this very thread more than once. I'm saying it again just for you. * It's not illegal to ask what the animal is for. * In fact, you're encouraged to do so. It's the only way to weed out the imposters. Educating you on this and other facts is the goal of this thread, so that your ideas regarding the national cripple database don't spread too far.



Oh yeah, right. And if I say yes, they can't refuse me entry. 

If they ask me what the service dog is for, I pretty much give them two reasons and I am good to go without them being able to refuse me entry, since I know enough to pass "that little game". 

How is that for "weeding out" imposters.


----------



## wildo

chudsosoft said:


> Cars, prescription drugs, and handler-trained service animals aren't comparable. Every last one of your arguments assume that they are.
> 
> Asking _anybody_ to register their *fill-in-the-blank* for the purposes of mollifying the ignorant is _wrong_. Period. Perhaps it would be safer if every service dog were thoroughly tested, inspected, registered, stamped, sealed and licensed. It would also be safer if we all had to be strip searched to leave the house. Registrations, identifications, and yet more paperwork, in general, are an *undue burden* on the people who would be required to have them.
> 
> I regard certain behaviors as being dangerous, and by your line of thinking I should move to require that people pass an IQ test in order to enter a public space. It's all in the name of safety. We have to get our eyes tested to drive, right? The FDA inspects drug factories, so, maybe they should also inspect my dog's butt and my IQ. You know, just to make sure we're all safe.


I don't understand why people would attempt to use sarcasm in a logical argument. That's a pretty great way for me to instantly dismiss what you have to say. Oh- that's also a nice slippery slope argument insinuating that the requirement of certification on an animal that goes into public spaces where other animals are not allowed would eventually lead to ridiculous certifications on strip searches and whatever other nonsense you said.
_________

You know- what's most interesting to me is that people faking service dogs really only hurts disabled people who own service dogs. I don't have a service dog, so if a business denies one because of some incident- it affects me in no way. As such, you would think that SD handlers would be the biggest advocate against people faking SDs- most intuitively through actual federal legislation. Though the board members on this forum are certainly not the majority of SD handlers, it is really interesting to hear that they are _not_ in favor of legislation that better protects their rights.


----------



## Mrs.K

chudsosoft said:


> Not only is this not the case, it's been said here in this very thread more than once. I'm saying it again just for you. * It's not illegal to ask what the animal is for. * In fact, you're encouraged to do so. It's the only way to weed out the imposters. Educating you on this and other facts is the goal of this thread, so that your ideas regarding the national cripple database don't spread too far.


Actually, I was right. You can't ask for certification!


----------



## beaderdog

> How, how is it their responsibility if it is illegal to ask about certification in the first place?
> 
> They are not allowed to request any kind of information about the service animal, if I got that right, so they can't ask!


No, you don't have it right. As has been said several times in this thread already, there are questions businesses can legally ask regarding service dogs. What they cannot ask for is any kind of certificate or credential for the dog or proof of the handler's disability.


----------



## Mrs.K

> 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*.


ID, as in certification. 

*How, how is it their responsibility if it is illegal to ask about certification in the first place?

*Looks like you got it all wrong and stop putting words into my mouth!


----------



## Lin

wildo said:


> Not it's not. It's not because it wouldn't be a requirement that the person have the certification or Id, it would be a requirement that the dog have the Id. Nobody is saying you can't use a service dog- their saying you can't use an unlicensed service dog. Since your service dog _actually is_ a real service dog- you'd have no problem getting the certificate (under such a system). That's not discrimination.


Again, the service dog does not have the public access rights. The HANDLER has the public access rights. Requiring the handler to certify their dog and carry identification (doesn't matter if the dog is wearing it, its the handlers responsibility to have the dog wearing it) is discrimination. Its not different than requiring an individual carry identification to use a wheelchair. Are we going to start requiring people register their wheelchairs and get license plates before using them in public? I really don't know how else to explain this to help you understand. 

And even if we developed federal certification, there are issues with implementing it. If ANY responsibility be it driving to a testing site falls on the handler, its taking away the rights of a handler. Yes, it may be easy for me to go get certification. But how about the agoraphobic that can't travel to a testing site? Or the person who due to their disability can not do long car rides? And who pays for it is a VERY big problem when you're talking about people who may be unable to work at all and living off of disability payments alone. Your suggestions just aren't feasible.



wildo said:


> I never said I was threatened by a service dog. I said that since I have no way to know if a service dog _actually is_ a service dog or not- I could potentially feel threatened by a vicious dog attempted to be passed off as a service dog. Under such a system where there was actually a certificate or registration for "real" service dogs- such situations would be drastically (if not entirely) reduced.


It is the businesses responsibility to ensure the dog is an actual service dog. Do your part to help the situation, educate business owners on what their rights are and what they can and cannot ask to determine of the service dog is legitimate.



Mrs.K said:


> How, how is it their responsibility if it is illegal to ask about certification in the first place?
> 
> They are not allowed to request any kind of information about the service animal, if I got that right, so they can't ask!


Please reread this thread. I have repeated myself over and over what businesses can and cannot ask. I have repeated myself over and over that education is key. That learning what you can and cannot ask protects both sides. You cannot ask for certification. You cannot ask for ID. You can ask if the dog is a service dog. You can ask what kind of service dog the dog is. You can ask for 2 service tasks the dog performs for the handler. You cannot ask what disability the handler has. You can ask a service dog to leave if they are causing a disruption. If the handler is unable to answer these questions, you've covered your basis and even if the dog was legitimate you did nothing wrong and are protected if it goes to court.


----------



## Mrs.K

> Please reread this thread. I have repeated myself over and over what businesses can and cannot ask. I have repeated myself over and over that education is key. That learning what you can and cannot ask protects both sides. You cannot ask for certification. You cannot ask for ID. You can ask if the dog is a service dog. You can ask what kind of service dog the dog is. You can ask for 2 service tasks the dog performs for the handler. You cannot ask what disability the handler has. You can ask a service dog to leave if they are causing a disruption. If the handler is unable to answer these questions, you've covered your basis and even if the dog was legitimate you did nothing wrong and are protected if it goes to court.


I understand just right. Even if it doesn't make any sense to me. If you can ask about the performance of the dog... "Oh, he's a seizure alert dog..." how is that not telling anybody that I am suffering from seizures. Seriously...


----------



## ILGHAUS

> As such, you would think that SD handlers would be the biggest advocate against people faking SDs- most intuitively through actual federal legislation. Though the board members on this forum are certainly not the majority of SD handlers, it is really interesting to hear that they are _not_ in favor of legislation that better protects their rights.


None of the SD handlers here that I have seen has said "they are not in favor of legislation that better protects their rights." Some just don't agree on some of the ideas or suggestions while some do. Some may agree on the idea behind suggestions but not on the matter or style in which someone presents it.


----------



## wildo

beaderdog said:


> As has been said several times in this thread already, there are questions businesses can legally ask regarding service dogs. What they cannot ask for is any kind of certificate or credential for the dog or proof of the handler's disability.


I sincerely hope that the lawyer who wrote this got paid a million dollars. Seriously. It's so awesome, it's almost laughable. It's like saying, "Businesses can ask if the SD is real, but they can't ask for any _actual proof_ if the SD is real."

What!? Ha... I do laugh at it. It's really quite genius. (And I am not being sarcastic. I mean it- it's laughably awesome.)


----------



## wildo

ILGHAUS said:


> None of the SD handlers here that I have seen has said "they are not in favor of legislation that better protects their rights." Some just don't agree on some of the ideas or suggestions while some do. Some may agree on the idea behind suggestions but not on the matter or style in which someone presents it.


That is an excellent point.


----------



## Mrs.K

wildo said:


> I don't understand why people would attempt to use sarcasm in a logical argument. That's a pretty great way for me to instantly dismiss what you have to say. Oh- that's also a nice slippery slope argument insinuating that the requirement of certification on an animal that goes into public spaces where other animals are not allowed would eventually lead to ridiculous certifications on strip searches and whatever other nonsense you said.
> _________
> 
> You know- what's most interesting to me is that people faking service dogs really only hurts disabled people who own service dogs. I don't have a service dog, so if a business denies one because of some incident- it affects me in no way. As such, you would think that SD handlers would be the biggest advocate against people faking SDs- most intuitively through actual federal legislation. Though the board members on this forum are certainly not the majority of SD handlers, it is really interesting to hear that they are _not_ in favor of legislation that better protects their rights.


I don't get it either. And you can't change their mind. Which is why I am out for now. It doesn't matter what you say, how you say it... it's all discriminating, even if it makes sense. 

You'd think they do anything and everything to weed out imposters... just a couple of weeks ago somebody (from the rescue scene) complained that he couldn't take his little dog into some coffee house and somebody actually had the nerve to suggest to sell him off as a service dog... people do it on a daily basis and you are right, the only one that is hurting from it, is service dog handlers.


----------



## Lin

wildo said:


> You know- what's most interesting to me is that people faking service dogs really only hurts disabled people who own service dogs. I don't have a service dog, so if a business denies one because of some incident- it affects me in no way. As such, you would think that SD handlers would be the biggest advocate against people faking SDs- most intuitively through actual federal legislation. Though the board members on this forum are certainly not the majority of SD handlers, it is really interesting to hear that they are _not_ in favor of legislation that better protects their rights.


Service dog owners ARE the biggest advocates against faking. This is why we so strongly advocate education. But if someone doesn't want to learn and doesn't care what their own rights are there is nothing I can do about it. Which is very unfortunate. I've run into it time and time again, offering to bring in printed documentation or speak to employees about what their rights are. Most people decline the offer, which is always disappointing. Its equally disappointing to have said over and over in this thread that businesses need to learn their rights and what can and cannot be asked so they can protect themselves. 

If you'd like to learn more about service dogs and speak to more handlers, check out Service Dog Central. The forums there will say the same thing as members here have been saying, however maybe one of them will be able to better phrase things to help you understand. 

We are for the rights of the disabled. And its not ok to us to give up our own rights in effort to punish the guilty. As I mentioned much earlier, the law is written in a way of 'its better to let 10 guilty men go free than punish one innocent.' Taking away the freedoms and protections of the disabled in exchange for preventing fakers is not a fair exchange to most of us. 

Now if only business owners, landlords, and so forth would be willing to educate themselves or allow us to educate them so they could protect themselves against fakers. In the meantime we will keep trying, as well as lobbying for change that doesn't punish SD handlers. The Assistance Dog Advocacy Project is currently lobbying for a law that will require organizations to stand behind certifications. This will cut out those who pay money for fake service dog certifications.


----------



## ILGHAUS

> "Oh, he's a seizure alert dog..." how is that not telling anybody that I am suffering from seizures. Seriously...


Because the person by law is not required to answer you in that form. No one must tell you that they are prone to seizures.


----------



## beaderdog

> you would think that SD handlers would be the biggest advocate against people faking SDs- most intuitively through actual federal legislation. Though the board members on this forum are certainly not the majority of SD handlers, it is really interesting to hear that they are _not_ in favor of legislation that better protects their rights.


Those of us with service dogs know that our rights are already protected by federal law. Certification has nothing to do with protecting our rights. It would not give us any rights that we don't already have. What it would do is make life easier for everyone else, at the expense of disabled persons, which is the opposite of what was intended by the ADA. Many of us advocate against people with fake service dogs - quite a few of us in this thread alone have advocated education so that businesses will ask the right questions & learn how to weed out imposters. That would be far more helpful to those of us with service dogs than a certification program would be.


----------



## Lin

Mrs.K said:


> I understand just right. Even if it doesn't make any sense to me. If you can ask about the performance of the dog... "Oh, he's a seizure alert dog..." how is that not telling anybody that I am suffering from seizures. Seriously...


Because you can reply that your dog is a medical alert dog. You are not required to say the dog alerts to seizures, or the dog alerts to blood sugar changes if you're diabetic. And seizure alerting is not considered a trained task. It is not teachable the way detecting blood sugar changes are, a dog has the ability to alert to seizures or it does not and cannot be taught. After you ask what kind of service dog the individual has, you ask for 2 trained tasks that the dog performs. If they are unable to answer without putting thought into it, they are most likely faking. If you suspect they are faking after asking all of the questions you have the right to ask you may deny access. If the dog was legitimate you have covered yourself and done nothing wrong. 

I've never met a faker who was able to answer the correct questions. I'll use an example from this board. A member admitted taking their dog in to stores where only service dogs were allowed. When asked if the dog was a service dog, they replied the dog was a therapy dog. Therapy dogs do not have public access. If the store had been informed about their rights, they could have then asked the individual to leave the store.


----------



## Mrs.K

ILGHAUS said:


> Because the person by law is not required to answer you in that form. No one must tell you that they are prone to seizures.


Wait a second. The business is allowed to ask what the dogs perform on. How in the world do you explain that the dog alerts to seizures? 

And what kind of sense does it make to allow the business to ask but you don't have to answer? 

The entire law is a joke! 

Either I am to stupid to understand or it's a joke! If it is a seizure dog, you might as well say it because I can't seem to find any other reasonable explanation of what a seizure dog does. 

And maybe, it's actually not the stupidest thing to let people know that you suffer from seizures and that you've got a seizure dog with you. 

Just like it's a good idea to let people know that if you get stung by a bee that the shot is in the right pocket, so if the person actually gets stung by a bee you can react within seconds and perform a life saving task!


----------



## wildo

ILGHAUS said:


> Because the person by law is not required to answer you in that form. No one must tell you that they are prone to seizures.


Just curious- if you would be so kind to _help me understand this_

Scenario- I suffer from seizures, and have a SD to help me with that. I walk into Walmart and the greeter says:
"Excuse me sir, is that a service dog?"

To which I reply- "Yes."
Then, within the law, they ask- "Can you please tell me two tasks this dog is trained to perform?"

...How can I answer that without stating that the dog senses seizures?? I am sure there are crafty responses, but since this is a situation I am not in- I can't imagine a response that doesn't give away my disability. Can you tell us some responses that _would_ be applicable?


----------



## Lin

Mrs.K said:


> ID, as in certification.
> 
> *How, how is it their responsibility if it is illegal to ask about certification in the first place?
> 
> *Looks like you got it all wrong and stop putting words into my mouth!


Because it is the businesses responsibility to know what their rights are and what they can and cannot ask so they can deny access to a service dog. Its another thing thats been said over and over in this thread. ILGHAUS also posted the business brief earlier in the thread. If you look at the stickies in this section of the forum you can find the business brief as well as other documents about the law. 

It is not legal to ask for certification or IDs. It IS legal to ask if the dog is a service dog. It IS legal to ask what kind of service dog the dog is. It IS legal to ask what tasks the service dog performs for the handler. It IS legal to expect the person to care for the dog on their own while in a place of business. It IS legal to request a handler remove their dog if they are causing a disruption. The best way to protect yourself is education. But I can't go around doing people's jobs for them. I can repeat over and over what can and cannot be asked and why people should know their rights. I can repeat over and over about why its in the best interest of all parties to know their rights. But I cannot do it for you. If someone chooses to just complain and say there is nothing they can do and the law should be changed because they don't like it, I can't help them. If anyone has suggestions of plans including reasonable ways to implement them please lobby your local politicians for change. Join the Assistance Dog Advocacy Project and help educate others. 



wildo said:


> I sincerely hope that the lawyer who wrote this got paid a million dollars. Seriously. It's so awesome, it's almost laughable. It's like saying, "Businesses can ask if the SD is real, but they can't ask for any _actual proof_ if the SD is real."
> 
> What!? Ha... I do laugh at it. It's really quite genius. (And I am not being sarcastic. I mean it- it's laughably awesome.)


The law was written the way it was written to provide the maximum rights to the disabled individual. We are very fortunate here in the US to have so much freedom and protection.


----------



## ILGHAUS

I think that one point that many are not aware of here is that businesses do take people to court. So it is not a worthless waste of time when they ask the proper questions. 

While a business owner can only ask general questions, a judge can and will ask more in depth questions. Penalties for faking can be very serious up to time in jail, fines, and a loss of benefits.


----------



## Mrs.K

Lin said:


> Because you can reply that your dog is a medical alert dog. You are not required to say the dog alerts to seizures, or the dog alerts to blood sugar changes if you're diabetic. And seizure alerting is not considered a trained task. It is not teachable the way detecting blood sugar changes are, a dog has the ability to alert to seizures or it does not and cannot be taught. After you ask what kind of service dog the individual has, you ask for 2 trained tasks that the dog performs. If they are unable to answer without putting thought into it, they are most likely faking. If you suspect they are faking after asking all of the questions you have the right to ask you may deny access. If the dog was legitimate you have covered yourself and done nothing wrong.
> 
> I've never met a faker who was able to answer the correct questions. I'll use an example from this board. A member admitted taking their dog in to stores where only service dogs were allowed. When asked if the dog was a service dog, they replied the dog was a therapy dog. Therapy dogs do not have public access. If the store had been informed about their rights, they could have then asked the individual to leave the store.


That topic makes my head hurt. 
I know what it is like to sit in a wheel chair and to be dependent on people but I would never take the discrimination thing so far that I'd feel discriminated if I had to provide proof that my dog is a service dog. 

But maybe that is cultural differences... I'd rather have a tested dog and KNOW that my dog can perform his duties instead of giving a chance to imposters.


----------



## wildo

Lin said:


> Because you can reply that your dog is a medical alert dog.


That is not a task. That's an adjective.


----------



## Mrs.K

Lin said:


> The law was written the way it was written to provide the maximum rights to the disabled individual. We are very fortunate here in the US to have so much freedom and protection.


Sometimes I think that it's also your worst enemy. And just because a dog has to undergo testing, doesn't mean your rights are cut in any kind of way. 

Sometimes I actually feel like, that on certain topics, we have much more freedom than the US ever will and don't get me started on all the ridiculous stuff that is going on in US Courts... or overall common sense of people...

Freedom is a nice thing but not when it gets misguided and it turns into a melting pot that you can't please. 

Just look what that all has done to Christmas. You can't even say merry Christmas without hurting somebodies feelings...


----------



## Lin

Mrs.K said:


> Wait a second. The business is allowed to ask what the dogs perform on. How in the world do you explain that the dog alerts to seizures?
> 
> ...
> 
> The entire law is a joke!
> 
> Either I am to stupid to understand or it's a joke! If it is a seizure dog, you might as well say it because I can't seem to find any other reasonable explanation of what a seizure dog does.
> 
> And maybe, it's actually not the stupidest thing to let people know that you suffer from seizures and that you've got a seizure dog with you.
> 
> Just like it's a good idea to let people know that if you get stung by a bee that the shot is in the right pocket, so if the person actually gets stung by a bee you can react within seconds and perform a life saving task!





wildo said:


> Just curious- if you would be so kind to _help me understand this_
> 
> Scenario- I suffer from seizures, and have a SD to help me with that. I walk into Walmart and the greeter says:
> "Excuse me sir, is that a service dog?"
> 
> To which I reply- "Yes."
> Then, within the law, they ask- "Can you please tell me two tasks this dog is trained to perform?"
> 
> ...How can I answer that without stating that the dog senses seizures?? I am sure there are crafty responses, but since this is a situation I am not in- I can't imagine a response that doesn't give away my disability. Can you tell us some responses that _would_ be applicable?


Seizure alerting is NOT a trained task. A service dog must have a minimum of 2 trained tasks to mitigate a disability. In the instance of a seizure response dog, the tasks could include seeking assistance from others. Bringing medication. Standing over the individual during a seizure. Fetching water to take medication. Reminding individual what time to take medication. And so forth. These are trained tasks to mitigate a disability. 



> And what kind of sense does it make to allow the business to ask but you don't have to answer?


If a business asks the questions that they have a right to ask and the individual refuses to answer, the business has a right to deny access. This is why we keep saying its in the businesses best interest to know their rights. If you don't know, you cannot protect yourself.


----------



## beaderdog

> I would never take the discrimination thing so far that I'd feel discriminated if I had to provide proof that my dog is a service dog.


Perhaps what's hanging you up here is that _written_ proof is not required. If you can satisfactorilly answer the questions that a business can legitimately ask about your service dog, you have indeed proved that he/she is a service dog. More often than not, imposters get away with it not because they've figured out what to answer, but because they were _never asked_ in the first place. That's not the fault of disabled persons with service dogs - that's the fault of the business owners.


----------



## ILGHAUS

> Scenario- I suffer from seizures, and have a SD to help me with that. I walk into Walmart and the greeter says:
> "Excuse me sir, is that a service dog?"
> 
> To which I reply- "Yes."
> Then, within the law, they ask- "Can you please tell me two tasks this dog is trained to perform?"
> 
> ...How can I answer that without stating that the dog senses seizures?? I am sure there are crafty responses, but since this is a situation I am not in- I can't imagine a response that doesn't give away my disability. Can you tell us some responses that _would_ be applicable?


OK, first the questions that the Wal-Mart greeter ask are not going to be very in-depth. 

They may ask if the owner is (legally) disabled. They may then ask "Is your dog a Service Dog", "Is your dog a trained Service Dog", "Is your dog trained to mitigate your disability" or some variation thereof.

If you answer those questions "Yes", you are legally stating that you are disabled and that your dog is a legal Service Dog. If later circumstances show that neither one is the case you can be later brought up on fraud charges in a criminal court. 

Chances are if none of the customers complain over something that your dog did or the dog does not present some type of problem then there will be no more said or done. But from time to time there is a problem or the actions of the dog give the management cause to look closer then that is when a legal action may be started.


----------



## wildo

Lin said:


> In the instance of a seizure response dog, the tasks could include seeking assistance from others. Bringing medication. Standing over the individual during a seizure. Fetching water to take medication. Reminding individual what time to take medication. And so forth. These are trained tasks to mitigate a disability.


Thanks for that. I see now how responses like that don't give away one's disability.


----------



## Lin

wildo said:


> That is not a task. That's an adjective.


I don't understand what you're saying. Medical alert is the type of service dog. A dog who alerted to seizures or diabetic blood changes is a type of medical alert dog. And so when someone with a seizure alert dog is asked what kind of service dog they have, they can answer medical alert dog if they do not want to disclose having seizures. 

My dog is a mobility assistance service dog. When I am asked what type of service dog I have, I say mobility assistance service dog. I am not required to say Ehlers Danlos Syndrome assistance dog and disclose a specific condition.


----------



## Mrs.K

Lin said:


> I don't understand what you're saying. Medical alert is the type of service dog. A dog who alerted to seizures or diabetic blood changes is a type of medical alert dog. And so when someone with a seizure alert dog is asked what kind of service dog they have, they can answer medical alert dog if they do not want to disclose having seizures.
> 
> My dog is a mobility assistance service dog. When I am asked what type of service dog I have, I say mobility assistance service dog. I am not required to say Ehlers Danlos Syndrome assistance dog and disclose a specific condition.


But they can ask for two tasks. Being a medical alert dog doesn't give them any information about the task. It's a generalization.


----------



## Hillary_Plog

At the risk of stirring the pot...anymore than it's already been stirred...I actually agree that there should be a standardization and/or certification program for service dogs. I think there are plenty of solutions to the obvious issues or problems that would arise from creating such a program.

I have a spinal cord injury, from an auto accident caused by a drunk driver, and have been using a wheelchair as a result since 1998. I was a disablity advocate for the department of human services and a professional public speaker for disability awareness and sensitivity before I became a teacher. I have been a service dog trainer for 2 organizations in Illinois for over 10 years now. 

I mentioned the information in the above paragragh only to give reference to my particular viewpoint, and show that there is such a large perplexity to this issue. 

Lin, I applaud you for being so elequent in providing the facts and information behind this conversation, and am so happy to see a person with a disability with such zest for providing education and enlightenment.


----------



## wildo

Sorry, just a technicality. 

"Maam- can you tell me a task that this dog is trained to perform?"

Response #1
"This is a medical alert dog."

Response #2
"This dog is trained to alert in a medical emergency."

Response number one did _not_ answer the question by stating a task, rather it just renamed the dog. Response number two was more proper in that it actually named a task rather than renaming the dog.

Totally a technicality. But if a business has the right to specifically ask for two tasks, then SD handlers should be able to actually answer the question.


----------



## Mrs.K

wildo said:


> Sorry, just a technicality.
> 
> "Maam- can you tell me a task that this dog is trained to perform?"
> 
> Response #1
> "This is a medical alert dog."
> 
> Response #2
> "This dog is trained to alert in a medical emergency."
> 
> Response number one did _not_ answer the question by stating a task, rather it just renamed the dog. Response number two was more proper in that it actually named a task rather than renaming the dog.
> 
> Totally a technicality. But if a business has the right to specifically ask for two tasks, then SD handlers should be able to actually answer the question.


And absolutely legit.


----------



## Lin

Mrs.K said:


> But they can ask for two tasks. Being a medical alert dog doesn't give them any information about the task. It's a generalization.


Because asking what kind of service dog is only one of the questions that can be asked. Not the only question that can be asked. Asking for 2 trained tasks is a separate question with separate answer. The type of service dog is not the answer for the tasks. If I'm asked what tasks my dog performs, I do not answer mobility assistance. Instead I can answer retrieving dropped items. Acting as a brace. Acting as balance support. Pulling me up from a sitting position. And so forth. 

Hillary, Thanks 

If there was an implementable plan I could be for registering service dogs. I used to be for it when Tessa was still in training. But even if there was a plan I agreed with I would be against requirement to carry ID at all times for the issues I listed earlier in the thread. 

In the present I'm all for education to weed out the fakers. Typically the fakers have no idea what they're doing and would be simply caught by the questions businesses can ask. If only businesses would finally start asking the right questions! And I think the current lobbying done by the ADAP on certifications will help a lot. Most fakers don't know the law at all and don't even realize you don't need certification. So they buy the fake online certifications. If we can successfully make the companies accountable for teams they sell certification to, that would stop a lot of the fakers.


----------



## beaderdog

> But they can ask for two tasks. Being a medical alert dog doesn't give them any information about the task. It's a generalization


The description of the type of service dog he/she is is a generalization. That isn;t the description of the tasks. For instance, when I'm out with Boomer I state that he is a mobility assistance dog. When asked about tasks, I say he braces for balance & he helps me stand up from a sitting position. None of that indicates that I have degenerative arthritis & neurological damage from a car accident. If he's out with my son, who has autism, the answers relate to what he does for my son. Either way, we've proven that he is a service dog who assists us in the tasks of daily life.


----------



## ILGHAUS

> Sorry, just a technicality.


 Because it is stated that a *Business* has certain rights doesn't mean that the greeter at a Wal-mart is going to be up on all the legal rights of that store. But you can bet that the legal department of Wal-mart knows and that the management of that store should know. 

The greeters are given (or should be) the basic training on what to ask. There is a fine line and so it is in the store's best interest (legally) not to have their greeters get into a very in-depth conversation on the matter.


----------



## Mrs.K

beaderdog said:


> The description of the type of service dog he/she is is a generalization. That isn;t the description of the tasks. For instance, when I'm out with Boomer I state that he is a mobility assistance dog. When asked about tasks, I say he braces for balance & he helps me stand up from a sitting position. None of that indicates that I have degenerative arthritis & neurological damage from a car accident. If he's out with my son, who has autism, the answers relate to what he does for my son. Either way, we've proven that he is a service dog who assists us in the tasks of daily life.


And that I can understand and follow. Just saying _he's a medical alert dog or a mobility dog _wouldn't give them any answers. 

So the dog is a service dog for two people? Is that even possible? I thought a Service Dog could only perform for one person.


----------



## wildo

Lin said:


> Because asking what kind of service dog is only one of the questions that can be asked. Not the only question that can be asked. Asking for 2 trained tasks is a separate question with separate answer. The type of service dog is not the answer for the tasks. If I'm asked what tasks my dog performs, I do not answer mobility assistance. Instead I can answer retrieving dropped items. Acting as a brace. Acting as balance support. Pulling me up from a sitting position. And so forth.


Got it. I reread your post where you mentioned medical assistance dog, and see that it was not in response to a question on tasks. Sorry- I guess I misread that!


----------



## Mrs.K

ILGHAUS said:


> Because it is stated that a *Business* has certain rights doesn't mean that the greeter at a Wal-mart is going to be up on all the legal rights of that store. But you can bet that the legal department of Wal-mart knows and that the management of that store should know.
> 
> The greeters are given (or should be) the basic training on what to ask. There is a fine line and so it is in the store's best interest (legally) not to have their greeters get into a very in-depth conversation on the matter.


Until an imposter walks into the store and somebody is bitten than everybody will yell for the greeters head because he did not ask the propper questions... and he's the first one to be fired.


----------



## ILGHAUS

The information is out there and readily available to business owners and management on what their rights are. Some of us here may seem to be dancing around on some points but we can not give legal advice only our *opinions*. There is a law against giving such advice without a license. 

That is one reason that we (as those of us who advocate for SD teams, for the rights of a business, and for members in the community) try to back up our statements with quotes and links where possible.


----------



## beaderdog

> So the dog is a service dog for two people? Is that even possible? I thought a Service Dog could only perform for one person


Boomer has been my son;s service dog for about 4 years now. When we started thinking about the possibility of a service dog for me, I did some research online & found that there are organizations that will cross-train service dogs for families who have more than one disabled persons. The first example I found was, coincidentally enough, a dog that was being trained for both autism & mobility assistance. As we already have 2 other dogs in the family, it made sense to us to try cross-training Boomer first, rather than bring another dog into the household. In our particular situation, my son is rarely out without me (and vice cersa), so sharing Boomer has been a very practical solution. The trainer who helped us with my youngest beagle's CGC is working with us to train Boomer for mobility tasks. It's actually working out quite well for now. As Boomer gets older & I need more assistance it will probably be better for me to have my own service dog. Having worked with Boomer willl be a big help when it comes to training a new mobility dog, I'm sure.

I should probably also mention that my son gets "first dibs" on Boomer. He is first & foremost his service dog.


----------



## ILGHAUS

> Until an imposter walks into the store and somebody is bitten than everybody will yell for the greeters head because he did not ask the propper questions... and he's the first one to be fired.


OK, I'm going to now ask you a question -- do you have access to a case where this has happened?


----------



## chudsosoft

What the law said:

"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."

What I said:

"*It's not illegal to ask what the animal is for.*"

Learn how to read, etc.


----------



## chudsosoft

wildo said:


> I don't understand why people would attempt to use sarcasm in a logical argument. That's a pretty great way for me to instantly dismiss what you have to say. Oh- that's also a nice slippery slope argument insinuating that the requirement of certification on an animal that goes into public spaces where other animals are not allowed would eventually lead to ridiculous certifications on strip searches and whatever other nonsense you said.
> _________
> 
> You know- what's most interesting to me is that people faking service dogs really only hurts disabled people who own service dogs. I don't have a service dog, so if a business denies one because of some incident- it affects me in no way. As such, you would think that SD handlers would be the biggest advocate against people faking SDs- most intuitively through actual federal legislation. Though the board members on this forum are certainly not the majority of SD handlers, it is really interesting to hear that they are _not_ in favor of legislation that better protects their rights.


First, let me apologize for the misunderstanding. I use hyperbole to make my point. I don't intend to insult you personally. I'm taking your arguments to a ridiculous extreme to help you see my reasons for disagreeing. I don't mean it as an affront.


----------



## wildo

BTW, ILGHAUS, I wanted to say that I didn't miss this comment; I just didn't know what to say about it. My perspective is that you are right in saying that the general population doesn't consider this a very big concern. It's good to question if I will speak to my representative about my opinions on the topic, because the reality is that I won't. It just doesn't really seem right. I'm neither disabled, nor do I have a service dog, and I am certainly not a business owner- so why should I impose my opinion? Most likely, I am not current with what's going on and what the best solutions are anyhow. I whole heartedly believe that SDs should be certified, and that this is not discrimination towards disabled people. If the bulk of the disabled community disagrees with me- then it's not even in _their_ best interest for me to talk to my representative. That's why I say- I agree with you, but am not sure how to respond.

In the end- it _only_ makes sense, in my opinion, to find some organization who lobbies for such ideas, and back the organization. Sure, I have a right to speak with my rep and push for certifications- but I would hope they would take those thoughts and put out feelers for what people *actually affected* by such things think.



ILGHAUS said:


> This is something that is discussed and discussed and has been for a period of time. In the general population it is not a high point of concern. Yes, people read an article and respond in the interactive section in their local e-paper and sometimes people participate in threads such as this from time to time. BUT, how many people go from here and try to follow through with their ideas? When was the last time anyone (other than our SD handlers) read one of these threads and took it upon themself to research the law further and then contacted their local Representative or Senator and asked for a change in their State Law?
> 
> There is a movement in the SD community to look into this matter but it is slow going. People with disabilities usually don't have the funds (over half live at or below the national proverty level) or the means to travel to lobby for changes. That saying, it is usually a section of PWDs who use SDs who are the most concerned with fakers and their dogs or with PWDs with dogs that are not suitable or undertrained for the work.
> 
> The ADA just underwent changes which finally went into effect March 15, 2011. For over a year the general public, a multitude of agencies, and disability organizations were invited to submit their concerns and suggestions. I don't look for such an opportunity to come again on the Federal level for the next revisions anytime in the near future as the ADA was 20 years old before this the first revision.
> 
> On the other hand, the opportunity for a change on the state level comes up every year.


----------



## DJEtzel

Mrs.K said:


> So the dog is a service dog for two people? Is that even possible? I thought a Service Dog could only perform for one person.


Why wouldn't this be possible? If both people were disabled and the dog could perform three tasks for each independently to their disability, then he falls under the title of a service dog to each. A dog could be a service dog for ten people with autism and passed around if they so desired. As long as he fits the bill.


----------



## ILGHAUS

I started a thread that may explain the feelings of some PWDs and maybe give a little insight of why they do not want to have to be forced to carry and show documentation in order to use their dogs. Maybe this will help some to understand why some people with a disability feel being forced to do so once again delegates them to a lower status. I am not saying this is correct nor am I saying this is my personal feeling, but to discuss the issue we need to be able to understand where everyone is coming from.

The ADA as has been stated is a Civil Rights Law just like any law dealing with a class of people. 

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/guide-therapy-service-dogs/161321-history-ada.html

Civil Rights can not be lumped in with the priviledge of driving a car. Civil Rights are in keeping with the basic concepts of which most citizens of the U.S. believe. 

Any changes to the ADA or other Civil Rights Laws must be taken slowly and looked at from many sides. 

The ADA is not meant to give "extra" benefits to a PWD but to ensure that the basic life rights of a PWD is the same as those given to people without disabilities.


----------



## beaderdog

> The ADA is not meant to give "extra" benefits to a PWD but to ensure that the basic life rights of a PWD is the same as those given to people without disabilities.


Interesting that you should point this out. DH is an attorney who specializes in special education law. We were just talking the other day about the resistance we find so often among school personnel to assistive technology for students with disabilities. The mindset that using AT is somehow giving a disabled student an unfair advantage is something we run into frequently, and it's frustrating. We've been talking with some of the other attornies who represent students to see what works best for them to combat this misconception. I'll be interested to see how your new thread develops.


----------



## Chicagocanine

Lin said:


> Seizure alerting is NOT a trained task. A service dog must have a minimum of 2 trained tasks to mitigate a disability.


Can you please direct me to where the ADA says this?
I thought tasks OR work was acceptable? I never knew there had to be 2 or more.


----------



## Lin

The DOJ repeatedly states "tasks" which leaves it at a minimum of 2 service tasks to qualify. For example, the Business Brief

ADA Business Brief: Service Animals


> 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.


Work can be used to mean the compilation of tasks, or in place of the word tasks and meaning the same thing. The law dictates that a service dog must be trained specific tasks to mitigate the handlers disability. 

Service Animals and the ADA


> The work or *tasks* performed by a service animal must be directly related to the handler's disability.
> 
> Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to:
> 
> 
> 
> assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks
> alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds,
> providing non-violent protection or rescue work,
> pulling a wheelchair,
> assisting an individual during a seizure,
> alerting individuals to the presence of allergens,
> retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone,
> providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities,
> helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors.


----------



## PhoenixFiresky

So, correct me if I'm wrong in my reading, then, but based on Lin's quotes, a business essentially has to choose whether to ask if a dog is a service animal, or to inquire as to the tasks it performs - but it seems to be an either/or situation, according to the quote. 

Quote: "Businesses may ask if an animal is a service animal *or* ask what tasks the animal has been trained to perform"

And then, this other quote would seem to indicate that a service dog can perform either work OR tasks. It seems to me that a seizure alert dog would qualify, since the alert may be something the dog does naturally, but if the dog is not reinforced for doing so (and reinforcement is a form of training) then the dog will be likely to stop alerting, or will be exceedingly unreliable. The psychiatric service dog website divides the dog's activities into work/tasks based upon what is required of the dog - tasks require central physical activity, whereas work is more mental on the dog's part as in alerting. In any case, seizure response would qualify as learned, right? 

Quote: "The work *or* tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the handler's disability"


----------



## Lin

No, its not actually meant as an either/or situation. Its actually just meant in the way that both are acceptable questions. 

Seizure alerting does not qualify as a task, because it is not trained. Seizure alerting is something that a dog can or cannot do but is not something that can be trained because we don't know how the dogs are actually doing it. The way it works is training seizure response dogs, and it seems to be a 50/50 chance that after the dog begins to work with the disabled handler they may start alerting. 

The psychdog site is actually not a very good site.. The way they term work and tasks is individual to the site, and doesn't follow the way the law looks at it. They have a lot of misinformation out there. 

Work is the combination of tasks. For example mobility work, guide work, while each of these can be broken down into individual tasks. A handler must be ready to explain the individual tasks the dog is trained to perform, or it shows they really don't understand the law. And in my opinion, even a handler who is legally disabled and has acquired a dog through a legitimate organization has no business in public until they understand the law, including both their rights and the rights of the business. In a legitimate organization, this will be covered during training. In owner training, its up to the individual.


----------



## 1rockyracoon1

okay so i took a rational look at this and broke out my dictionary according to the dictionary the definition of Discriminatory is "characterized by or showing prejudice or partiality" now that being said the definition of prejudice is "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason" now looking at both of those definitions together. i am failing to see how showing an id would be dicriminatory and asking you several questions relating to the service dog would not discriminatory. also to defend why i see no difference. The employees in the business go and ask the questions that they have a "right" to based on the predetermined thought that the animal might not be a service dog. how would that be no different than an id card (However it could end up being determined to get an id card). 
all definitions from my Websters college dictionary


----------



## Lin

Its because making extra requirements for a person to be able to perform certain things is discrimination unless requirements are made for EVERYONE to perform certain things. If these requirements are only existing for the disabled, or the disabled that use a certain device, then its discrimination against that group. 

Being in a public place, and being able to do what you need to do in public places is a basic right. None of the ADA laws apply to private places, only public. Its discrimination to require one small group something extra to be allowed entrance to that public place. 

Requiring identification to use medical equipment of a small group of people, is discrimination. And that is how the law views the service dog, medical equipment. 

Requiring identification to use a wheelchair in public would be discrimination, discrimination because you are only requiring wheelchair users to carry special identification for the ability to access a public place. 

In the same vein, requiring identification to use a service dog in public would be discrimination, because you are only requiring service dog users to carry special identification for the ability to access a public place. 

Now if the entire population was required to carry a specific ID that allowed them public access, it would not be discrimination to require the disabled to carry that as well. However due to the nature of a disability, it would be possible for the law to allow the disabled NOT be required to carry this specific ID. For example, the nature of a brain disability that predisposed an individual for problems remembering an ID at all times. If their disability made it more difficult to carry this special ID and it resulted in difficulty in "major life functions" (as defined by the ADA) it would be reasonable for accomidation to waive the requirement of carrying this ID. This is how the ADA works, to level the playing field for disabled individuals.

As for answering questions- the far majority of the disabled are able to answer questions without having have the ability to remember to bring or carry a specific ID with them. Questions can be answered without having to afford paying for a special ID. Questions can be answered without having to afford to pay for a government branch that privately tests and registers service dogs. If questions cannot be answered due to the nature of the disability, unfortunately that individual may need to carry a copy of the business brief or sheet with the answers to these questions already on them. Unfortunately accommodations are still not always equal, though this great country tries very hard to do so. 

I hope this helps you understand better.


----------



## blehmannwa

I e-mailed REI this evening to ask if they allow therapy dogs in training into the stores. My husband wants some new Vibrams and they are available at the REI flagship store here in Seattle. The e-mail from the help desk said that they only allow service dogs not pets and that I should contact the store directly. I'm not going to pursue it because I have no wish to spend a lot of time explaining the difference between therapy dogs and service dogs.

But I think that it's funny that REI explains its policy re:dogs as "some people are uncomfortable with them" and "allergies." This store has a massive climbing wall. It caters to extreme sports. It sells bear spray! It also sells a wide variety of doggie backpacks, camp beds, collapsible balls and frisbees. It seems to me that they should be able to accommodate dogs. I think that it's especially funny given Barnes and Noble's very dog tolerant policy. Are readers less apt to be "uncomfortable" than outdoor enthusiasts?

I wonder how dog friendly places like "Cabelas" are given the emphasis on hunting?
Anyway, I shan't be inflicting my dog on the delicate sensitivities of rock climbers, kayakers, and back country campers. They could be uncomfortable.

This is really no big thing and I'm fine with the policy. They have a nice parking structure and Havs will be quite happy in the car. I just found it very odd. I would have expected them to be dog-friendly.


----------



## Lin

There's no need to discuss the difference between therapy dogs and service dogs, if a stores policy is to not allow pets than thats that. A therapy dog is a pet, even after its been certified by a therapy organization. So therapy-in-training or therapy dog isn't relevant, they do not have public access rights. 

It is completely in the stores right to not allow pets. If you have an issue with the stores policy, and your defense is similar stores allowing pets, well then go give your business to the ones that allow pets! 

When Tessa was a service dog in training we started where pets were allowed. And there were enough of these places that when we started where pets are not allowed everything went very smoothly. There is no need for everyplace to allow pets. Support which stores you wish to support.


----------



## blehmannwa

I agree and I certainly don't have a problem with the policy. In fact, that's why I won't pursue the issue. A therapy dog is a pet. The help desk told me to contact the store regarding "service dogs." I get annoyed when I see people blurring these lines. Service dogs have public access because their handlers have rights.

I just found it amusing/ironic that a store that specializes in outdoor adventures doesn't allow pets because of discomfort or allergies. To me, that's what the outdoors is all about...being uncomfortable...and scared of bears..and itchy. Seems like a bunch of unruly labs being fitted for backpacks would be a good intro to the wonders of camping with dogs.


----------



## Lin

Ah ok, now I understand you better. I've seen many people that believe therapy dogs are service dogs, or that they are allowed to go in stores just because they are allowed in nursing homes etc. Not understanding thats invited access, not public access. 

Its especially sad about stores not understanding this difference, and even more so when later business owners or employees start complaining about fake or non service dogs being in the store. If they familiarized themselves with the law, they could prevent the issue!


----------



## GordaLoca

Lin said:


> It depends.
> 
> 
> Give me a few minutes!! LOL
> 
> Ok, it depends on your state. Federally, SDITs have no public access rights. In California for example, SDITs have the exact same public access rights as SDs."
> 
> It depends on how you interpret the law. Under the California Code, every county's Animal Control Department was somehow supposed to magically agree to issue the same exact type of tag using the same application format without the tags actually being produced or distributed at the State level. Whether a SDIT team was legally entitled to access to either housing or public places depended on the trainer getting this tag...which was never legally produced.
> 
> While there are two or three counties where it's possible to get "California Assistance Dog" tags of some kind (I don't know if they even look the same) because owner-trainers either filed lawsuits to force their county authorities to comply or threatened to do so, the tag's only supposed to carry legal weight if ALL counties issue them. I'm still picking my tag up Tuesday, as gatekeepers don't need to know this and I live in one of few lucky counties. I had to divulge information state law says nothing about having to include on the application (legally I should have had to just sign an affidavit stating that I know it's illegal to misrepresent a dog as a SD or SDIT and am aware of the legal penalties for doing so; San Diego County Department of Animal Services' application required me to identify whether the dog for whom I was getting the tag was or was to be trained as a guide, signal [hearing], or service dog AND what tasks it had been or would be trained to perform, and though it read "DO NOT GIVE MEDICAL INFORMATION", there was no way I could think of to describe what I'll be training mine to do that wouldn't make the neature of my disability obvious) to get the darned thing, so I'll use it!! But in the month it took me to get it (I had to apply twice; I used the first application to protest its being illegal instead of filling it out the way they asked), I was denied access only once after identifying my dog as a SDIT - not due to his behavior, but because he wasn't dressed. Everywhere else we went, I didn't identify him unless questioned, and was given access even after identifying him as a SDIT.
> 
> The best way I know to learn what your state's laws say re: service animals is to search by state at www.animallaw.info . Arizona law allows owner-trainers public access with SDIT without any special requirements, BTW. ;-)


----------



## ILGHAUS

> Ok, it depends on your state. Federally, SDITs have no public access rights. In California for example, SDITs have the exact same public access rights as SDs."


Federal law does not say that there are no public access rights with a SDIT. Under current regulatory law the topic of SDITs is not addressed which leaves such under the individual States.

"Public Access Rights" do not belong to the SD or SDIT. The rights belong to the PWD - the handler and under cetain laws or ordinances (under state or county) a trainer. A person with a legal disability has the right to take a dog where pet dogs are not allowed *if certain requirements are met*.

The tag that you are talking about. Is that a county tag since you are talking about county vrs county. Some counties offer a free tag which may or may not also have *Service Dog* engraved on it. It is just a free version of the tag that other dog owner must pay a fee for.



> Under the California Code, every county's Animal Control Department was somehow supposed to magically agree to issue the same exact type of tag using the same application format without the tags actually being produced or distributed at the State level. Whether a SDIT team was legally entitled to access to either housing or public places depended on the trainer getting this tag...which was never legally produced.


If you are not speaking of a regular county tag which most counties in the country require can you post a link to the State Code you are speaking about. I'm just not understanding what you are speaking about in your post.


----------



## ILGHAUS

Or you may be referring to the following State Code Section 54.2(b), *Service dogs in training* (Bolding and underlining was done by me.)

Quote:
Individuals who are blind or otherwise visually impaired and persons licensed to train guide dogs for individuals who are blind or visually impaired pursuant to Chapter 9.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code or as defined in regulations implementing Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336), and individuals who are deaf or hearing impaired and persons authorized to train signal dogs for individuals who are deaf or hearing impaired, and individuals with a disability and persons who are authorized to train service dogs for the individuals with a disability may take dogs, for the purpose of training them as guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs in any of the places specified in Section 54.1 without being required to pay an extra charge or security deposit for the guide dog, signal dog, or service dog. However, the person shall be liable for any damage done to the premises or facilities by his or her dog. These persons shall ensure the dog is on a leash and tagged as a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog by an identification tag issued by the county clerk, animal control department, or other agency, as authorized by Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 30850) of Title 14 of the Food and Agricultural Code.

This is an additional (State right) given to trainers of SDITs if they request and comply with requirements. Since the extra benefit comes from the state/county then if a handler or trainer wishes to receive this benefit then they are also required to complete the requirements. Federal Law does not state what a State, or the counties under State Code, may or may not require on an application in order to receive *additional benefits*. 

"These persons shall ensure the dog is on a leash and tagged as a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog by an identification tag issued by the county clerk, animal control department, or other agency, ... "

These requirements are legal as they are *not in violation of any right given under Federal Law.* If CA stated that Service Dogs were required to wear a special tag for *rights given under Federal Law* then that would be a Federal Civil Rights violation. The topic under discussion here re: SDITs is an *additional benefit* and the handler or trainer does not have to partake of this additional benefit to receive any of their Federal rights. 

Under the same section, part (a) of Section 54.2 Right of individuals with disabilities to be accompanied by a trained service dog:

"Every individual with a disability has the right to be accompanied by a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog, especially trained for the purpose, in any of the places specified in Section 54.1 without being required to pay an extra charge or security deposit for the guide dog, signal dog, or service dog. However, the individual shall be liable for any damage done to the premises or facilities by his or her dog."

So SDITs are required to wear a special tag and SDs are not per California Code. The Code is in compliance with Federal Law. 

Public Access is not required to train a dog as a Service Dogs. People train dogs in states without the benefit of taking the SDIT into places which do not allow dogs.


----------



## Lin

ILGHAUS said:


> Federal law does not say that there are no public access rights with a SDIT. Under current regulatory law the topic of SDITs is not addressed which leaves such under the individual States.
> 
> "Public Access Rights" do not belong to the SD or SDIT. The rights belong to the PWD - the handler and under cetain laws or ordinances (under state or county) a trainer. A person with a legal disability has the right to take a dog where pet dogs are not allowed *if certain requirements are met*.


I was saying that they do not have public access rights because they are not addressed. Since federal law does not even mention SDITs, ergo they have no protection under federal law. Just semantics. 

I tend to flip back and forth between saying SDs have public access rights, and further clarifying that its the disabled that has the the public access and not the dog. It depends on how necessary it is to the conversation, since it's much faster/easier to say SDs have public access rights. Since that post is so old, I'm too tired to go re-read back at the beginning of the thread for that again lol! There's just so much detail that can be gone into, I guess I make short cuts if I deemed the further explanation not pertinent.


----------



## ILGHAUS

> Since that post is so old, I'm too tired to go re-read back at the beginning of the thread for that again lol!


I just read GordaLoca's post and was replying to it.  I wasn't exactly sure what their question was so tried to answer it from two angles that I thought they might have been asking.


----------



## Lin

ILGHAUS said:


> I just read GordaLoca's post and was replying to it.  I wasn't exactly sure what their question was so tried to answer it from two angles that I thought they might have been asking.


You quoted my post though, followed by the portion that I then quoted. So it looks like that part of your post is replying to me.


----------



## ILGHAUS

Looks like a missing quotation mark made the post read differently.


----------



## Lin

Yea I can see how that can happen! Instead of the tag to close the quote box, its an actual quotation mark. 

The full post GordaLoca was replying to was this:




Lin said:


> Konotashi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are service dogs that are in training allowed everywhere that a fully trained service dog is allowed?
> 
> 
> 
> It depends.
> 
> 
> KZoppa[quote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Lin when you need her?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me a few minutes!! LOL
> 
> Ok, it depends on your state. Federally, SDITs have no public access rights. In California for example, SDITs have the exact same public access rights as SDs. In Indiana, SDITs have the same public access rights "when accompanied by a service dog trainer" and does not define service dog trainer. So you could interpret that to include owner trained dogs or only organization trained dogs. When Tessa was a SDIT, I started out calling places in advance and asking if they allowed SDITs just to cover my a**.
> 
> ETA: I don't consider it to be a loophole... IMO abusing a SDIT patch/vest is no different than abusing a SD one. Most of the time, if your dog doesn't cause a problem no one is going to question either. I could see where people might be more likely to abuse a SDIT one, since you could use the 'in training' as an excuse for inappropriate behavior. But people even slap therapy dog vests/patches on and take dogs places when therapy dogs have NO public access rights (they are only welcome when invited.)
Click to expand...

I really do not like the quoting style of the forum!!! I really appreciate threads not being clogged down with useless quotes of quotes of quotes, but when so much gets automatically chopped off things get lost from context.


----------



## wildrivers

*? california*

Where is it stated by law that California allows the same access for service dogs in training as a fully trained service dog? I can not find this law any where. Thanks.


----------



## BeautifulChaos

here: California Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws

"§ 54.2. Guide, signal or service dogs; right to accompany individuals with a disability and trainers; damages
.....
(b) Individuals who are blind or otherwise visually impaired and persons licensed to train guide dogs for individuals who are blind or visually impaired pursuant to Chapter 9.5 (commencing with Section 7200) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code or as defined in regulations implementing Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336), [FN1] and individuals who are deaf or hearing impaired and persons authorized to train signal dogs for individuals who are deaf or hearing impaired, and individuals with a disability and persons who are authorized to train service dogs for the individuals with a disability may take dogs, for the purpose of training them as guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs in any of the places specified in Section 54.1 without being required to pay an extra charge or security deposit for the guide dog, signal dog, or service dog. However, the person shall be liable for any damage done to the premises or facilities by his or her dog. These persons shall ensure the dog is on a leash and tagged as a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog by an identification tag issued by the county clerk, animal control department, or other agency, as authorized by Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 30850) of Title 14 of the Food and Agricultural Code"


----------



## wildrivers

Guess I am alittle confused with the statement below on having a authorized tag:
These persons shall ensure the dog is on a leash and tagged as a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog by an identification tag issued by the county clerk, animal control department, or other agency, as authorized by Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 30850) of Title 14 of the Food and Agricultural Code.
A violation of the right of an individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336) also constitutes a violation of this section, and nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the access of any person in violation of that act.

I read in other posts (here on this forum) California only has 3 countys (one of which is not where I reside) who issue tags. So as a resident of a county who does not issue a SD in training tag, is my only legal protection to get a tag off the internet as the above states "other agency". ??


----------



## ILGHAUS

> is my only legal protection to get a tag off the internet as the above states "other agency". ??


Tags, certificates, etc. off the Internet are scams and not legal. 

Some states do not address (recognize) SDITs at all but people are still OT their dogs. You do not need to be able to take a dog "everywhere" you go to train. It is possible to train a SD in those places that are open to any well behaved pet.

As to the laws you will find that many times it seems that one dept. or one county does not seem to know what the other areas' regs or even the state statutes say. These grey areas are why in many cases a difference of opinion end up in a court of law.

Always verify through proper legal channels the info that you *need to know* if there is any confusion. Members here can give you our opinions (and we have several very knowledgeable people here) but for the real meaning go to your Attorney General's Office for the final word.

Tel: (916) 322-3360


----------



## GatorDog

I guess I don't really understand why people with a SD wouldn't want to have a standard way of identifying a legitimate SD over an impersonator. I _personally _know two different people who use their dogs as "Service Dogs" because they know exactly how to answer the only questions that people are allowed to ask. The one dog is an extremely obedient IPO trained Belgian Malinois and the other is an agility trained Border Collie. Both fly alongside their owners on airplanes and accompany them in whatever stores/places they go to. Neither is used for any disability services. 

On the other hand, I have been to multiple different places where I have seen people with dogs that may or may not be SD's, but are definitely not qualified to hold that "title" either..I was once in the grocery store and saw a Chihuahua wearing a service vest sitting in the cart with its owner pushing it around. This dog may have been of some use to its handler, but it was growling and barking at anyone who got anywhere near it. That is totally unacceptable behavior for an animal in a public place, if you ask me. I have also been into stores in which these "service dogs" have literally taken a dump in the middle of an aisle, or almost gotten into a fight by an animal passing by..

If I needed a SD because of a disability, I would be completely furious with the fact that people get away with lying about it all the time. My dog is extremely obedient and will literally bring me anything I tell him to "bring". So I could technically slap a vest on him and bring him wherever I want? No one would ever know that he isn't really a SD because I know how to answer the very limited questions that they can ask and don't have to prove anything. All I would have to say is "He is trained to bring me things that I need".

It just seems like there are loopholes for people to take advantage of the law, and it ruins it for those who need it. Wouldn't even a very basic certification eliminate some of the people who are faking it?


----------



## wildrivers

Thanks for the replys. Most people with disabilitys dont want to walk around with a tagged dog saying they have a disability, some do. Its an owners choice thanks to federal law. I will go to my animal control officer and see what they can offer tomorrow for answers on a tag.


----------



## ILGHAUS

GatorDog, we have various threads here in this section on your topics where you can read much on your questions.

People fake SDs because they are dishonest and have no regard for who they hurt or the fact that they are breaking various laws. They believe they are special and above the law. They are willing to purchase items and even fake certifications to assist them.



> I _personally _know two different people who use their dogs as "Service Dogs" because they know exactly how to answer the only questions that people are allowed to ask.


I personally have met a lot more then two including one who was the president of a local AKC based dog club and a minister to boot. 



> I was once in the grocery store and saw a Chihuahua wearing a service vest sitting in the cart with its owner pushing it around.


A Chihuahua is capable of walking at a heel next to its owner. Those who say they need their dog near their face so the dog can smell chemical changes don't seem to grasp the concept that dogs have very good noses and can detect smells more than 3' away. 



> but it was growling and barking at anyone who got anywhere near it.


Then that is the fault of the management of the store as they should (and legally can) tell the owner to remove the dog and that doesn't matter if the dog is in fact a SD. The same goes for if a dog eliminates in a store. Both of these are addressed by the Dept. of Justice. 



> If I needed a SD because of a disability, I would be completely furious with the fact that people get away with lying about it all the time.


Yes, it is a very touchy subject within the SD community and rightly so. 



> So I could technically slap a vest on him and bring him wherever I want?


You could put a vest on your dog but "technically" no. (I know what you mean. ) This is one reason that a group of us want our states to pass a statute which cracks down on those sellers of SD gear who encourage their sales based on making it easier for pet owners to present their pets as SDs.


----------



## GatorDog

Thanks for your response ILGHAUS. It just bothers me so much to know that some people really, truly _need_ their dogs just so they can make it through the day, and people continually abuse the fact that the laws aren't really too "firm" when it comes to SD's. It's just not fair. 

I don't plan on passing my dog off as a service dog, btw. =P It's just frustrating that the law makes it so easy for anyone to do so.


----------



## beaderdog

I think the main problem is not that the law regarding service dogs is "not firm", but that too often those in a position to ask whether or not a dog is a service dog fail to do so. If they ask the questions they are permitted by law to ask, it's likely that they'll weed out most of the imposters. I've run into many business owners who don't really have a clue what they can legally ask, so they either ask nothing, or just ask if it's a service dog & leave it at that. That's where education could make a big difference - if business owners & employees bother to learn what they can or cannot say it would be harder for imposters to pass off their non-service dogs. It's not the law that makes it easy, it's the lacksadaisical attitude of business owners & employees that does so.


----------

