# Emotional Support Dogs are not Service Dogs



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

The DOJ has clarified that ESAs or the presence of a dog to bring comfort or to make a person feel safe are not qualifications under the ADA. This has been a point of dispute between many in the SD world and a major PSD (Psychiatric Service Dog) organization for years. This organization which has been featured on many TV shows, news articles, and given recognition throughout the Internet has stated that "bringing comfort" to a PWD was the only work needed to qualify a dog to SD status. 

They have promoted some allowable trainable "tasks" <span style="color: #FF6666">*</span> as: 
Cuddle and Kiss
Hug
Lick Tears
Bring Tissues
Initiate Play 
Walk on a leash
Alert to aggressive driving
Carry handler identification documents
Facilitate social interactions

<span style="color: #FF0000">*</span> Remember that there is <u>no minimum number </u>of trained tasks needed to qualify a SD. So there are people claiming their dog is a SD based on the fact that it walks nicely on a leash or in one case a man claimed his dog as a SD because it knew while in a restaurant to go under the table and curl up. 
***********************************************
From the article DOJ's Proposal and Rationale for Allowing Psychiatric Service Animals (dogs only)
LINK 

_"The Department has adopted regulatory text in § 36.104 to formalize its position on emotional support or comfort animals, which states that "[e]motional support, comfort, companionship, or therapeutic benefits; the promotion of emotional well-being; and the crime deterrent effects of an animal's mere presence do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition." _

The DOJ is *not* disallowing PSDs:
_The Department has proposed specific regulatory text in § 36.104 to make this clear: "The term service animal includes individually trained animals that do work or perform tasks for the benefit of individuals with disabilities, including psychiatric and mental disabilities." _


----------



## angelaw (Dec 14, 2001)

Isn't this the same thread you posted?

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=927803#Post927803


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

I went back and fixed the link in my leading post in this thread. The first link that I had posted lead to a series of articles by one author on proposed changes by the DOJ on the ADA. The new link goes directly to the article in full instead of just a section which in turn had a link to the full article. 

I hope this helps. 



> Quote:Isn't this the same thread you posted?


On re-reading your question I'm not sure if you are referring to the links or the fact that both threads refer to the new clarifications by the DOJ. 

The other thread deals with dog only vrs. various animals for service animals and this thread deals with emotional supporting dogs vrs trained PSDs. 

Sorry I'm having trouble trying to decide what you question was? Long day and night and the brain is not fully functional.


----------



## angelaw (Dec 14, 2001)

Ok, I thought both were one and the same, my bad!


----------



## dOg (Jan 23, 2006)

Can't tell if you agree with this or not...

personally, I do, if only because every dog, no mater how ill-behaved,
qualifies for this title according to the owner/handler. In reality, they may do all these tasks for the handler, and yet still not be fit to be in public.

If they also required temperment testing, OB titles, a TDI title, then a doctor's recommendation for support, it might fly, but without them
this only makes sense for public safety and reduced liabilities of businesses and municipalities where incidents would likely occur.

The sad truth is, even with all those titles, too many in power are simply too fearful of dogs, and will cite allergies to them as a coverup. Been there, done that. 
Hard to fight city hall, it's full of lawyers!

They likely have either had bad experiences, or were read '3 little pigs', Little red riding hood' and 'Peter & the wolf' a few too many
times before being tucked into bed ironically with a Teddy Bear.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

No problem. There for a few minutes I was very confused and thought maybe I had started two threads on same topic. Not an unliking happening ...









If I didn't have my notes in front of me to refer to I would at times be completly lost.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> Quote:Can't tell if you agree with this or not...


I try to report facts as much as possible to allow everyone to read and go to the main sources and make their own decions. But I think my side always comes through -- maybe I'm just more aware of my slant and think it is apparent to others. 

Most of the changes that I've seen so far I approve of and in fact I wish some clarifications had more precise and clear language. 

To answer your question, I personally am not a believer that hugging and kissing etc. are SD tasks but a benefit of owning a loving pet dog.


----------



## SunCzarina (Nov 24, 2000)

> Originally Posted By: ILGHAUS hugging and kissing etc. are SD tasks but a benefit of owning a loving pet dog.


agreed. by the definition above of an emotial support dog, I could have been claiming Morgan as a service dog for years becuase she's trained to watch all 3 of my kids at all times. She herds them for me if I need her to. She's also quite polite with a leash on.

Have I ever done this? No. It's wrong and disrespectful to people who need actual service dogs. 

Pi$$es me off every time I see some late middle aged woman with her purse dog claiming it's a service dog just so she can take the lil rat into a store. 

Instead of more legal definition of what a SD is, the government needs to say SD need an ID, to be worn around the neck with a picture of the dog. Have some organization like TDI or delta society administer the IDs, they already have the infrastructure to administer a temperament test. They would just need to collect a piece of paper from a doctor. 

I can't see how having an ID system would inconvenience anybody who legitimately needs a SD.


----------

