# German Shepherd Bit Woman on Flight



## DanielleOttoMom (May 11, 2010)

This story just sounds strange to me...... Why is the dog on board a major commerical airlines and not a service dog? I wonder why the dog bite her if he didn't feel some sort of treat by her...... I do not mean that the lady deserved it by no means at all. Just would like to hear the story from the owner and the airlines as well. Maybe its just me but this story seems fishy! Please read the attached story.

http://www.fox41.com/Global/story.asp?S=13405512


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

Part of the article:
*"*The German shepherd was improperly allowed to board the flight," the suit states. "The German shepherd was not a service animal for mobility, hearing or visual disability. *The German shepherd was not in an animal carrier and was not stowed under the seat."*

:laugh:
I'm sorry I know this is serious but I'm trying to figure out how you store a German Shepherd under the seat in an airplane.


----------



## chano (Aug 18, 2010)

^ make him lay down and slide him backward under the seat? maybe they shouldve put the dog in the overhead storage compartment


----------



## 48496 (Sep 1, 2010)

Buy the dog a ticket. Make sure he's buckled in and his tray is in the upright position for take off and landing.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

littlebit722 said:


> Buy the dog a ticket. Make sure he's buckled in and his tray is in the upright position for take off and landing.


 
LOL, the visual just keeps getting weirder and weirder. I wonder who he gets to open his bag of pretzels?


----------



## Deuce (Oct 14, 2010)

Sounds fishy to me.


----------



## novarobin (Oct 4, 2007)

Whiteshepherds said:


> Part of the article:
> *"*The German shepherd was improperly allowed to board the flight," the suit states. "The German shepherd was not a service animal for mobility, hearing or visual disability. *The German shepherd was not in an animal carrier and was not stowed under the seat."*
> 
> :laugh:
> I'm sorry I know this is serious but I'm trying to figure out how you store a German Shepherd under the seat in an airplane.


:spittingcoffee:
I seriously thought you just added that in. Nope. 

Aren't you not allowed to ask if the dog is a service dog? So wouldn't the airport not be liable?


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

This story is just so bizarre. I read a couple of articles on it, and one said that she was suing the airport and several airlines. I'm not sure why she's suing more than one airline if this happened while on a flight with one airline? How are the other airline(s) she is suing responsible?

One article said -



> The German shepherd was not a service animal for mobility, hearing or visual disability.


Okay ... it could have still been a service dog, even if it's not a service dog for mobility, hearing, or visual disability. Still possible. Of course, it's also possible that this is someone's pet that they brought aboard after telling someone it's a Service Dog - we all know that happens.

Oh ... just found the full text. She is suing Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Delta Airlines, Skywest Airlines, and the Lousiville Airport Authority. Full lawsuit is online, here - http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wdrb/news/dogsonaplane.pdf


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> Aren't you not allowed to ask if the dog is a service dog?


Incorrect. You are allowed to ask if the dog is a Service Dog, and you are also allowed to ask if the person with the dog is disabled. (Service Dogs with trainers or non-disabled handlers don't have the same access rights in many states.) You are NOT allowed to ask what the person's disability is, though I believe you may ask what types of tasks the dog is trained to do. You also are not supposed ask for certification paperwork or Service Dog ID cards or a doctor's note stating that the dog is a Service Dog - none of those are required by law.


----------



## novarobin (Oct 4, 2007)

:thumbup:

Got ya. Thanks. I wasn't completely sure, which is why I asked.


----------



## Tarheel (Sep 6, 2009)

Maybe it was one of those "miniature" German Shepherds!


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Whiteshepherds said:


> Part of the article:
> *"*The German shepherd was improperly allowed to board the flight," the suit states. "The German shepherd was not a service animal for mobility, hearing or visual disability. *The German shepherd was not in an animal carrier and was not stowed under the seat."*
> 
> :laugh:
> I'm sorry I know this is serious but I'm trying to figure out how you store a German Shepherd under the seat in an airplane.


*Very carefully!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## BlackPuppy (Mar 29, 2007)

I was spending a lot of time at the FlyerTalk forums when I was preparing to fly to Europe to pick up my puppy. These guys on this forum are super frequent flyers. 

One guy said he saw a woman put an orange service dog vest on her large dog just before checking in at the counter. She winked at him as he watched. She clearly just wanted the dog to fly in the cabin. I suspect she's not the only one using this trick.


----------



## StryderPup (May 16, 2009)

Maybe they should have put the GSD in a purse or carry on bag...


----------



## Jax's Mom (Apr 2, 2010)

My favorite part is


> On or about November 20, 2009 Defendants' premises were in an unreasonably dangerous and unsafe condition, which unsafe condition was known or should have been known to the Defendants.


If you expected the airplane to know the dog was going to bite you in the face, how come you didn't figure it out?

I'm getting so tired of people expecting others to think for them all day long and when someone fails to, they sue.

Did she once ask to be moved away from the dog? She saw it was a dog and was not safely stowed under the seat rofl but sat there anyway. No one forced her, just like no one forced her to board an airplane that could potentially fall out of the sky. Isn't that also an "unreasonably dangerous and unsafe condition, which unsafe condition was known or should have been known to the Defendants."?

I hope a judge one day tells someone "It's a dog. You sat next to it. It bit you. In the future, govern yourself accordingly."


----------



## vat (Jul 23, 2010)

I agree with you Jax's mom!!!


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> One guy said he saw a woman put an orange service dog vest on her large dog just before checking in at the counter. She winked at him as he watched. She clearly just wanted the dog to fly in the cabin. I suspect she's not the only one using this trick.


I don't know whether you've ever heard of or seen the show "Showdog Moms and Dads", but there is an episode where Kyra Sundance and her Weimaraner, Chalcy, fly out-of-state to perform on stage. In the airport, Chalcy is wearing a red vest labeled "Companion Dog" and Kyra talks about how Chalcy is flying as "a celebrity pet" and gets her own seat, then they show the dog sitting on pillows in a seat on the plane, wearing the vest.

When you've got examples like this set by people, it's no wonder if Joe Public thinks they can put a vest on their dog and claim it as a Service Dog.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

This case is being taken seriously. No one flying on a plane should be in fear of being attacked by any dog. It should not be up to the passenger to scope out and verify that any animal on board is safe to ride near. 

Service Dogs and ESA's are allowed to fly in the cabin on the floor. Airlines are under different regulations and not under the Dept. of Justice. Employees are allowed to ask questions not allowed by business owners/employees and if in doubt may ask for documentation. Inside of a plane is not Public Access covered by Title II or Title III. 

Different airlines have different regs for pets - some allow one pet per flight some two but they must be in a secure carry-on and not taken out. The carry-on must be able to fit under the seat. The carry-on is way too small for any but the youngest GSD puppy. 

Yes, many people abuse the system and go complete with vests purchased via the Internet along with those ID cards that are so popular with the "Faker" crowd. Some of the worst offenders are many of the show dog handlers who laugh about it with quips such as "It would make me sick thinking of my baby flying in the hold".


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I've had to endure long flights with yipping ankle biters under their owners seat in a crate- i wanted to bite them,lol I thought the rule was a non service dog could fly under the seat secured as a carry on, but in a crate as long as they fit. Dogs larger than this must fly under the plane in the cargo area again secured in a crate. Therapy and service dogs can fly in the cabin with the owner, but I thought documentation was needed to verify the dog was in fact a service or therapy dog. I guess I am wrong,lol I could see wanting to sue the airline and/or owner if there were actual damages but no more than the cost of care and loss of income if work was missed. 

Very strange story nonetheless but the airline and owner ultimately were at fault. I wouldn't assume a large dog was going to bite me either honestly


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> but I thought documentation was needed to verify the dog was in fact a service or therapy dog.


The regs for Service Dogs *on* a flight are under The Air Carrier Access Act. Most of the airport buildings are under the ADA. So while waiting for your flight and going into a restaurant at the airport between flights you are covered under one set of laws and federal agency while once you board a U.S. flight you are covered under another set of laws and federal agency. 

Cut & Paste from the ACAA ...
§ 382.37 Seat assignments. 
(c) If a service animal cannot be accommodated at the seat location of the qualified individual with a disability whom the animal is accompanying (see § 382.55(a)(2)), the carrier shall offer the passenger the opportunity to move with the animal to a seat location, if present on the aircraft, where the animal can be accommodated, as an alternative to requiring that the animal travel with checked baggage. 
§ 382.38 Seating accommodations. 
(3) For an individual traveling with a service animal, the carrier shall provide, as the individual requests, either a bulkhead seat or a seat other than a bulkhead seat. 
§ 382.55 Miscellaneous provisions. 
(a) Carriers shall permit dogs and other service animals used by persons with a disability to accompany the persons on a flight. 
(1) Carriers shall accept as evidence that an animal is a service animal identification cards, other written documentation, presence of harnesses or markings on harnesses, tags, or the credible verbal assurances of the qualified individual with a disability using the animal. 

The key here is _credible verbal assurances_ so when flying the handler can be asked to show documentation. So if someone acts confident and knows how to answer any questions and also has what looks to be creditable ID then they can get through. An example to this would again be *those* (not all of course but enough to harm reputable SDs) show handlers who think that Champion Bo Bo is special and above the law. 

Often when someone flys with a large SD there are people willing to share their foot space with the dog. I have friends who on boarding a plane have had people offer to let them sit next to them and are willing to scrunch up themselves to allow the dog to be more comfortable. Perhaps this woman was one of those kind-hearted people willing to sit next to a SD team. 

Lawsuite:


> Plaintiff was severely and permanently injuried


http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wdrb/news/dogsonaplane.pdf


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I am enlightened you would think in this day and age actual documentation would be needed from an accredited agency. I have to have a doctor's note every time we fly with my son to bring his nebulizer, albuterol, pulmcort, and other meds on a flight- it's a huge deal each time even with the note the machines and medications are tested each time whichis so much fun when flying alone with two wee one's. The injured woman deserves compensation and the airline IMO is just as responsible as the idiot owner


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> I'm sorry I know this is serious but I'm trying to figure out how you store a German Shepherd under the seat in an airplane.


To answer your serious question, if the dog was a SD it would not have to be in a crate under the seat. If a pet then it could only be in a carry-on that would fit under the seat. So a full grown GSD not a SD would have to fly in pet cargo.

I am also sorry to see where some other members find any amusement in a story about a woman being bitten in the face by a GSD. I see more anguish both for the SD community who use SDs and for GSDs once again as a breed.


----------



## StryderPup (May 16, 2009)

We don't find it funny that the lady was bitten in the face. It is a very serious issue/incident. 
I myself am trying to imagine where you would put a GSD or any large dog, service or not, on a plane, with the exception of pet cargo. So in my opinion, I do find some hilarity in the image of stuffing a GSD in overhead storage or under a seat.
In addition, I thought that all pets, service or other, had to have clearance from the vet and be up to date on their shots, etc, before they can fly. This goes back to the owner being an idiot and lying and the airline for allowing the woman to bring the pet on board. I do feel for the victim as it was not their fault.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Jax's Mom said:


> My favorite part is
> If you expected the airplane to know the dog was going to bite you in the face, how come you didn't figure it out?
> 
> I'm getting so tired of people expecting others to think for them all day long and when someone fails to, they sue.
> ...


Are you serious? You're saying that the woman who sat by and got bit by a dog on a potentially full flight is at fault here for her ignorance to not asked to get moved? So she should risk A. delaying the flight and B. possibly missing her flight because sitting next to a dog on a plane is not "governing herself accordingly?!"

I'm sorry, but what person in their right mind would think that if a dog is loose on a plane cabin that that dog might NOT be a legitimate service dog and risk getting bit? I personally have sat right by a service dog for a blind woman on a plane and loved it. I absolutely didn't mind, and it certainly never crossed my mind that the dog might turn around and bite me. And then if people were in some way BLAMING ME for my stupidity of not asking to be moved?! WHAT?!

I, too, am strongly against frivilous lawsuits. However, in this instance both the pet owner and the airline were extremly out of line and a lawsuit is aboslutely warrented in this instance.


----------



## BlackPuppy (Mar 29, 2007)

AbbyK9 said:


> In the airport, Chalcy is wearing a red vest labeled "Companion Dog" and Kyra talks about how Chalcy is flying as "a celebrity pet" and gets her own seat, then they show the dog sitting on pillows in a seat on the plane, wearing the vest.


I heard about this perk for "celebrity dogs". The context I read was the dog had to be on television or something. SAR dogs are also allowed to fly in the cabin. Though I image it depends on the airline.


----------



## Jax's Mom (Apr 2, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> Are you serious? You're saying that the woman who sat by and got bit by a dog on a potentially full flight is at fault here for her ignorance to not asked to get moved? So she should risk A. delaying the flight and B. possibly missing her flight because sitting next to a dog on a plane is not "governing herself accordingly?!"
> 
> I'm sorry, but what person in their right mind would think that if a dog is loose on a plane cabin that that dog might NOT be a legitimate service dog and risk getting bit? I personally have sat right by a service dog for a blind woman on a plane and loved it. I absolutely didn't mind, and it certainly never crossed my mind that the dog might turn around and bite me. And then if people were in some way BLAMING ME for my stupidity of not asking to be moved?! WHAT?!
> 
> I, too, am strongly against frivilous lawsuits. However, in this instance both the pet owner and the airline were extremly out of line and a lawsuit is aboslutely warrented in this instance.


Exactly, so if the woman didn't know the dog was going to bite her, how was the airline supposed to know? Any animal in a stressful situation may bite. A few weeks ago a TDI dog bit through his handler's arm because his tail was slammed into their van's door.
I wasn't saying it was the woman's fault, but how is it the airline's fault? Aren't owners responsible for their pets? Apparently not when the airline has a lot more money. No one has really explored the fact that maybe the dog's owner lied to get his dog on the plane. 
If this lawsuit is successful, it will only result in one very undeservedly rich woman and many people with disabilities needlessly harrassed and their service animals turned away. Instead of punishing the one person at fault, everyone else on the planet will be punished as usual.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Jax's Mom said:


> Exactly, so if the woman didn't know the dog was going to bite her, how was the airline supposed to know? Any animal in a stressful situation may bite. A few weeks ago a TDI dog bit through his handler's arm because his tail was slammed into their van's door.
> I wasn't saying it was the woman's fault, but how is it the airline's fault? Aren't owners responsible for their pets? Apparently not when the airline has a lot more money. No one has really explored the fact that maybe the dog's owner lied to get his dog on the plane.
> If this lawsuit is successful, it will only result in one very undeservedly rich woman and many people with disabilities needlessly harrassed and their service animals turned away. Instead of punishing the one person at fault, everyone else on the planet will be punished as usual.


It is very much the airline's fault if they allowed a dog on the flight who was not a service dog.


----------



## JessWelsch (Oct 2, 2010)

I think im missing facts.... 
Did the lady say that the dog was NOT a service dog?
Was she asked if it was a service dog and if SHE was disabled?

If the airlines didn't ask these questions (which they are allowed to ask) then I think the airline is at fault. If they asked the questions and she answered yes to both then I dont think you can blame the airlines... they had then asked what they were legally able to without being sued and it would all rest on the owners shoulders.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

No one said the airline did not ask but now possbily some more here can see why those active in the SD community are so against FAKERS and why we get so "uptight" (as I have been more than once accused of) when people joke about taking their animals into the public under false ID/vests.

It is easy to order vests and patches through various companies over the Internet. It is very easy to get registered with various groups and receive "official" ID cards and other documentation via the Internet. These dogs are registered sight unseen by an organization (probably someone in a back bedroom of their home) who then churns out great looking IDs for a hefty sum. 

I once had someone local to my area offer me $100. to write a note to her college admissions that her dog was a SD so she could take it to class with her. She had already spoke to them and that is all that they required. Her dog had SA and she didn't want to have to keep it in a crate while she was gone. That would have been very easy for me to do and for an additional fee I could have whipped out a very nice looking ID.

For $11. which includes tax and S&H from the company I can have a plastic ID with my picture and dog and it looks and feels as official as the ID that I wear to work. I can even have a bar code and info printed on the back.

As to suing who. Remember the suit said the woman had permanent problems. Since the airlines etc. have not already made a public statement contrary to her lawyer's statements then it is possible that they are in some type of mediation procedures. There doesn't seem to be at least at this time any confilct that the woman was bit and severly enough to require immediate and ongoing medical treatment.

Why not sue the owner? Perhaps the lawyer already checked and saw the owner has no insurance of any amount and does not have any property worth going after. If the person is indeed a PWD there are studies that have been done that state anywhere from 40-60 percent of PWD live below the poverty line. 

So to cover high medical costs the lawyer would go after the large companies who do have insurance for this very purpose. Think of it as having Owners Insurance on your home. If a neighbor or friend is hurt on your property and they do not have enough insurance to cover themself they would probably sue your company. 

*I am not saying that any of my statements are fact* but I am only trying to put out some possibilities to think about. One fact that I am certain of - if I am riding on a plane and a dog attacks me I would be suing. In seeing some of the damage that a large dog can do by biting someone on the face I am fully in agreement that medical costs must be paid by someone. If this woman was put through the trauma of such a happening then I am also for extra money. I have a friend that was taken via life flight and at the time none of the emergency personal on scene thought she would live to reach the hospital. I spoke to the first person on scene years after the fact and she could still remember exactly her feelings on arriving at the scene. Faces can hopefully be repaired to somewhat what they were before but major scars both inside and outside are almost a given if the details are as some are believing they may be.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I think SD's are probably one of the most important fixtures in their owner's life similar to my son's nebulizer- they are lifelines. Airlines should absolutely require real documentation to have an SD fly in the cabin though- I can't believe in our sue happy cover your own butt country this is not a law. When we fly we need REAL id's- why not SD's? I'm completely ignorant about service and therapy dogs though to be honest- do dogs who go through this training receive verifiable certifications, documentations, and id cards?

As far as the owner she holds the primary responsibility IMO- it was her dog and whether or not she lied, or didn't to get the dog on the plane is not the point to me- she made the decision to fly with her dog and her dog injured someone else. Unfortunately it is the airlines responsibility to ensure safety on their flights and just like they screen human fliers animals should be held to the same standard. No one should have to worry about being attacked by an animal on an airplane. I'm still in shock this actually happened it just seems so ignorant and negligent on both the owner and airlines part


----------



## vat (Jul 23, 2010)

I agree, if the dog owner indeed lied then they are responsible not the airline. I find it hard to believe that a real SD would bite someone for no reason which makes me think this was not a SD. Just a thought.


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

the vest says Companion Dog that doesn't indicate service dog
to me. the dog is flying as a celebrity dog. is there such a status
or is that something Kyra is saying for the camera???
besides i bet she's paying for a seat for her dog.



AbbyK9 said:


> I don't know whether you've ever heard of or seen the show "Showdog Moms and Dads", but there is an episode where Kyra Sundance and her Weimaraner, Chalcy, fly out-of-state to perform on stage. In the airport, Chalcy is wearing a red vest labeled "Companion Dog" and Kyra talks about how Chalcy is flying as "a celebrity pet" and gets her own seat, then they show the dog sitting on pillows in a seat on the plane, wearing the vest.
> 
> When you've got examples like this set by people, it's no wonder if Joe Public thinks they can put a vest on their dog and claim it as a Service Dog.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> If the airlines didn't ask these questions (which they are allowed to ask) then I think the airline is at fault.


As I had mentioned in a previous post in this thread the airlines are not under the Dept. of Justice and have their own governing Fed. agency. They not only ask these questions but also may ask additional and may if in doubt can ask for documentation. I have helped a PWD board with her SD (and SDIT in pet cargo) and while we were given first rate treatment and help they were also very thorough. She had all her documents in order including a health check from her vet less than 10 days old, documentation from her dog's trainer and from her own doctor. The airline was notified in advance that she would be traveling with a SD so that they had the option to hold any in-cabin pet dogs from that flight. They knew to have a representative from the airline on hand to help and insure that all went smoothly. They knew she would be have an escort through security by someone who would wait with her and stay with her until she went into the tunnel to board the plane. At the security check-point her dog was stripped of all gear which I then had to cary through the metal detector with me while they scanned both her and her "naked" dog. I was waiting on the other side to help escort her to the boarding area. 

But as I also posted it is very easy to fake documentation and equipment. This is the catch-22 that our system puts us in and why the ongoing debate in the SD community of if there should be a National Registration with IDs that are almost impossible to copy such as a DL. 

For those who want the regulations of the U.S. (such as the ADA) looked into I can only mention the fact that Congress just recently did some updates and changes were made on the original ADA. AND, there was a publicized period where the citizens of the U.S. were allowed and encouraged to state their thoughts. People had the opportunity to contact their legislators and that contact info was given. This was mentioned on various souces such as newspapers, the news, websites including those dealing with bill passage and law updates, dog sites, and SD forums. After that period there was time for people to weigh in on what was in the works. I posted some of the info here on this site myself. The original ADA (twenty years ago) and the new changes are made by on-going discussions and committees in Congress and then the final bill is signed by the President. The recent changes were not done overnight but took several years from beginning to end.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

And into all of this mix let me toss in the option that the owner of the dog did not claim the dog to be a SD but an *ESA*. (These are not covered at all by the ADA.) ESA = Emotional Support Animal. 

As to the poster about *Therapy Dogs* -- no they have no more rights on an airplane than they do on the ground. They have no more rights than any other pet dog. A Therapy Dog does not have automatic access into the hospitals or nursing homes where they visit. They must be invited in by the facility management. 

Just remember - all of these dogs must follow the regs that have been put into place by Federal, State, or Local laws. You may think a law is either not restrictive enough or maybe too restricting. Don't like something then like any other law speak up through the proper channels and work toward a change.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> I find it hard to believe that a real SD would bite someone for no reason which makes me think this was not a SD.


One can only hope but here is a thought to ponder. What exactly is a real SD and what makes a dog a Service Animal? What qualifications are needed and who determines if the dog passes? If I say a dog is well-behaved in public would you (general *you* here) agree? If I say a dog is suitable who has the power to disagree? Other than going to court and having a Judge rule is there any other way?

For those not aware here in the U.S. there is no governing body to test and evaluate SDs. There are no required IDs. There are no restrictions on who can train a SD including the owner. Most of us (in my area of contacts) don't want the option of an owner trainer taken away as there are many many great owner trained SDs out there just as there are many many agency trained bad SDs. 

I can't stress enough if someone doesn't like the system then speak up and become active. Those that sit back and just grumble are not in anyway being part of a solution. Saying the way things aught to be don't make for changes. First step (my suggestion) is to learn the laws and what they really mean. And please if interested learn the different terms and what they mean such as Service Dog/Assistance Dog/Guide Dog/Hearing Dog/Trained Companion Dog/Therapy Dog/Emotional Support Dog (Animal).


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> the vest says Companion Dog that doesn't indicate service dog
> to me. the dog is flying as a celebrity dog. is there such a status
> or is that something Kyra is saying for the camera???
> besides i bet she's paying for a seat for her dog.


Not a legal status but a term used in such a case. Many airlines make special arrangements through their PR Dept. for celebrities both animal and human. The airlines many times arrange for photo shoots and set aside the VIP Room for their use. When Lassie years ago flew into the town where I lived she(he) was with her(his) handler, groomer, and others. Fans & the news were waiting for their arrival. So as far as Kyra flying with her celebrity dog I am sure the airline knew in advance that the dog was not a SD and exactly who the owner was. Only way the press could have been around to take pictures of the dog on the plane or even past the security check point was via special permission of the airline for both them and their equipment. 

_If you get bored do a Google Search on Celebrities on Airlines and you can see there are many of the human type that I would not want to ever fly with._ _I don't think any dog with the most severe issues could destroy a plane on the inside as much as some football teams or some musical groups. _


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

If anyone is interested in reading the new changes made to the ACAA (Air Carrier Access Act) made May 13, 2009 they can go to the thread where I posted cut&paste sections and a link to the original on May 18 of that year. It may answer some of your questions of a SD on a U.S. flight. 

http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...ed-air-carrier-access-act-regulation-new.html


----------



## Jax's Mom (Apr 2, 2010)

It's very wrong that the airline is getting sued over this. 
If a dog bites someone at a public park, who is responsible? The dog owner or the park?
Why should a person with a legitimate SD be obligated to show ANY kind of ID just because someone else passes their dog off as a SD?
Anyone else has the right to walk in and out of a public place without being questioned, why shouldn't someone with a SD? Imagine the life of a person going from place to place showing ID everywhere they go and having a 5 minute discussion at each place about their disability because their dog MIGHT be a fake and therefore a danger to other customers?
How about we start asking obese people for medical documentation that they have enough control over themselves that they're not going to fall on anyone or knock anything over in the store?
How come no one sues when an airline lets terrorists onboard? If they can see the contents of someone's stomach, SURELY they MUST know about terrorists, right?


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Jax's Mom said:


> It's very wrong that the airline is getting sued over this.
> If a dog bites someone at a public park, who is responsible? The dog owner or the park?
> Why should a person with a legitimate SD be obligated to show ANY kind of ID just because someone else passes their dog off as a SD?
> Anyone else has the right to walk in and out of a public place without being questioned, why shouldn't someone with a SD? Imagine the life of a person going from place to place showing ID everywhere they go and having a 5 minute discussion at each place about their disability because their dog MIGHT be a fake and therefore a danger to other customers?
> ...


The airline CAN be sued because they have a responsibilty to ensure their passengers safety.

BTW they do get sued for terrorists actions.

They also should ask for some proof that a dog is an SD otherwise anyone unethical enough will pass their dog off as one. If you are a special case youshould have to be able to prove it when asked. 

You do realize that you have to show a photo ID to PROVE you are who your ticket says you are to board a plane aren't you? If you have to prove who you are, why not a dog?


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I agree a public park is different- even though airlines are public places they offer a very different service. I show ID when I board a plane as do my minor children- why not a dog? People can not be trusted to tell the truth which is why restaurants, gas stations, beer stores, and other tobacco and alcohol selling establishments card their patrons- people will lie to get what they want. Unfortunately those lies can injure and/or kill someone else.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> You do realize that you have to show a photo ID to PROVE you are who your ticket says you are to board a plane aren't you? If you have to prove who you are, why not a dog?


EVERYBODY has to do this, but only certain people would have to in regards to having a service animal.

Discrimination, anybody?


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Why wouldn't everyone with a SD have to show an ID?- no one here has said only some SD's should have to have valid ID. I don't see any discrimination whatsoever- if your flying with an item, dog, or other unauthorized belonging you have to have a reason to do so that has to be proven as necessary. My son is asthmatic and has to fly with his nebulizer, steroids, and other medicines which are unauthorized without a valid doctors note and prescription for the items. I don't feel discriminated against at all and understand it's for safety especially since 9/11. 

No one should EVER have to worry about being attacked on an airplane, no one should be able to fly with a loose dog who is not a SD dog, and those people should have to prove necessity.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> Why wouldn't everyone with a SD have to show an ID?


You're missing the point. It expands BEYOND just flying. Like everyday life isn't hard enough when you use an SD.

Since flight rules are different from "every day out in the world" rules, I could see it being used JUST for flights....but it very much opens Pandora's Box for the SD community.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Xeph said:


> You're missing the point. It expands BEYOND just flying. Like everyday life isn't hard enough when you use an SD.
> 
> Since flight rules are different from "every day out in the world" rules, I could see it being used JUST for flights....but it very much opens Pandora's Box for the SD community.


I don't think so at all. That's like saying that having to show a passport to get on a flight for an immigrant traveling internationally is opening Pandora's Box. Or someone with a medical condition needing a Dr's documentation. Or someone traveling with "forbidden" substances needing good documentation. Or any number of things.

If anything, I think that people who use an SD should be clarmoring to provide more documentation. I personally think if proper documentation was shown regularily and the people checking knew what to look for it would be much easier.


----------



## Jax's Mom (Apr 2, 2010)

Xeph said:


> You're missing the point. It expands BEYOND just flying. Like everyday life isn't hard enough when you use an SD.
> 
> Since flight rules are different from "every day out in the world" rules, I could see it being used JUST for flights....but it very much opens Pandora's Box for the SD community.


Exactly... Or how many people will be forced to miss their flights because they don't have the right document or it's bent or expired or whatever. 
It's hard enough getting a child on a flight if you're divorced with all of their ancillary documents required, what's going to happen to service dogs? 
If the person had a note on their passport that a SD is required, it wouldn't be such a big deal but that should only be asked for when presenting a passport like every other passenger.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I bet non disabled people miss flights everyday if they have forgotten their ID or it is expired...bent well thats just going out on a limb Disabled people don't deserve a free pass on things that threaten other people's safety and I say this as a mom of a disabled son. I know what documents I need to fly with him and keep them up to date and on hand....it's called being responsible. Everyday life is hard when your disabled and I bet it's just as hard for this woman who was bit now right? People are not special or above the law because they are disabled. They may need accommodations to perform the same tasks you and I do and those accommodations within reason should be met, but just as they need an accommodation airlines need security in the form of an ID when animals are involved IMO. It's a liability for the airline, owner of the animal, and innocent passenger that could be solved by a simple ID card every American is required to carry anyway.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

And just how do you expect these ID's to work? Standardized form? State laws already vary in regards to service dogs. What if each state issued different styles of IDs with different information on them? How do you then spot fakes (as if airline personnel don't have enough IDs to worry about)?

And what is required to acquire one of these IDs?

I have to say that my flight experiences with my SD have thus far been mostly positive. I've had two issues so far, one due to a misunderstanding on the part of the terminal staff (they thought Strauss was a war dog returning from Iraq !) and the other was with a passenger on the plane that wouldn't leave my blasted dog alone!

The first time I ever flew with him he flew as an ESA and I did provide some documentation for him that I had brought "just in case". It was fine and we had no further hassles.

The overall point I was trying to make, however, was that if airlines start requiring ID for my medical equipment (my service dog) it can very easily be expanded into my every day life. Going to the grocery store, or the mall etc. We experience a lot of issues as it is already, and we don't want more.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

Service Dogs in the United States are NOT REQUIRED to carry any form of ID. While some counties issue a "Service Dog" license tag, and some states require dogs to be ID'd by a specific type of collar, leash, or vest, there is no national requirement to vest or ID.

So if someone with a Service Dog goes to the airport to get on a flight, what ID are they supposed to show? There's no state Service Dog ID and no national Service Dog ID. If there were either, I wonder what the requirements would be to obtaining one? Would the dog have to be trained by an organization to be considered an SD and obtain a license? Would the dog have to go through testing? Who would pay for the testing? Would your tax dollars pay for the testing or would the people with disabilities who have SDs have to shell out the money so they can obtain an ID for their dog?

I don't know, it seems to me like this would infringe on the rights of people with disabilities who have a hard enough time using their Service Dogs in non-flight situations. (Example - Studies show that taxis are less likely to pick them up and/or will refuse them service. And a lot of stores have been in the news for excluding people with Service Animals.)


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

Chris, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. My worst access challenge actually wasn't in an airport, but in a restaurant. It was bad enough that we almost called the police. ID would have made no difference.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Each State issues different ID's to citizens as well sooooo it would seem to me it is quite possible for SD's to acquire something similar by State maybe just maybe make it the same as each State's ID already is? This isn't rocket science by any stretch. It is my understanding SD's are licensed or registered in some way though I am ignorant to exactly how that process goes to be honest. I am sure it differs by State just as most other laws, but either a dog has been trained to be a service dog, or one hasn't right? I don't know who pays to train SD's, or how those who are disabled obtain the dog, but in most States ID's are free so again if you already have the dog how hard would it be to obtain the ID?

People's rights are infringed on to protect the right's of others all the time- like no smoking in or around certain buildings, no animals in buildings where the dog may pose a health risk to someone else who is deathly allergic, no cats, no drinking in public, no peanuts or dairy in day cares where toddlers have allergies, and so on. We don't live in a world where we can make everything equal for everyone because not everyone is created equally. My son is autistic and will lose his mind if someone looks at him in public, hates the sounds of sirens, trucks, motorcycles, and other loud cars to the point of panic attacks that turn into potentially deadly asthma attacks- I guess I should ask my city to discontinue the use of these vehicles to protect him huh? He also hates music because it makes his ears cry, the smell of perfume, food, gas, and lots of other things we have to encounter day to day- maybe those things should be outlawed as well? His asthma is also triggered by leaves, cleaners, and temperature so because he is disabled mother nature should totally bend to his needs so his already tough life is easier? I know this sounds ridiculous, but my point is when your disabled there are some inconveniences you have to deal with. Getting your dog licensed according to your state's regulations and having an ID issued to PROTECT your right to have your SD with you really isn't ludicrous and would prevent those exploiting your real need for an SD to do so It would also open up the door to have laws that protect your right to bring your dog in the store, cab, airport, or other public venue because I'm actually quite shocked these things can and are being denied to people who need them. If it was a law no one could deny you that right lawfully making things easier not harder.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> It is my understanding SD's are licensed or registered in some way


As it was JUST stated, NO they are NOT!



> like no smoking in or around certain buildings


A person's right to smoke is not being infringed upon. They can still smoke, just not in that building.



> no animals in buildings where the dog may pose a health risk to someone else who is deathly allergic


It has nothing to do with allergies, it has to do with overall health and sanitation of the area. And having a dog in and of itself is not a right, it is a privilege



> no drinking in public


Drinking is also a privilege and can be taken away (Judges HAVE ordered people to quit drinking)



> no peanuts or dairy in day cares where toddlers have allergies and so on.


This is just excessive and ridiculous.

Everybody else can go shopping without being stopped and showing ID. Why should those with service dogs be stopped and show ID? People in wheelchairs, or those that have crutches or oxygen tanks do not have to do so. Service Dogs are not pets, they are medical equipment. Nobody else with medical equipment is questioned about it, so those of us in the SD community shouldn't be either.

And just because somebody in an airport can tell apart all the ID's, doesn't mean a Cabby does. If I'm from WI and I go to NY and I try to get in a cab, they can very easily say my ID is fake and refuse to give me service (they do that already). So what good has the ID done?


> It would also open up the door to have laws that protect your right to bring your dog in the store, cab, airport, or other public venue


They already are protected under the ADA


----------



## DFrost (Oct 29, 2006)

What happened to the discussion about this dog biting someone. That's inexcusable. Doesn't matter if it's a service dog, personal protection dog, therapy dog, police dog or a pet. The dog should not bite someone. The only exception to this is if the dog is trained to bite and it was commanded to do so. Regardless of the event. If this were a police dog and it was an accident, the law suit would be immediate. Not to mention forums such as this immediately jumping on the trash the policeman bandwagon.

Point is; the dog should not have bitten anyone. The handler of that dog is responsible for the behavior. The dog, ..... well, it's a dog. 

DFrost


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> Point is; the dog should not have bitten anyone. The handler of that dog is responsible for the behavior.


Agreed.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Nobody trashed any policemen unless I missed that and Xeph my examples were meant to be ridiculous as I stated- it was to prove a point. I also stated I HAD NO CLUE ABOUT SD's certifications. How does a service dog become a service dog then? Obviously they must be trained but after that who decides the dog is capable of doing the given job safely?

Also comparing a wheelchair, or crutches to a live animal is just as ridiculous as my exaggerations- a dog has the potential to become deadly- a wheelchair....probably not so much. So like a handgun why should you not have to have some sort of registration to bring a dog into an airport where it could be a potential risk? Oxygen tanks by the way are not allowed on aircrafts without a prescription or doctors not because they are combustible especially with cabin pressure 

You also proved my point with your privileges examples- privileges can be taken away so when supposed SD's start attacking passengers is the public supposed to turn a blind eye? And yes allergies are one reason animals are not allowed in public buildings same as smokers must smoke at home- it is a risk to other people's health. So while I agree people who NEED SD's should have access to them in public and on planes I feel it needs to be better regulated to avoid someone's face from being chomped off- call me crazy


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> It is my understanding SD's are licensed or registered in some way though I am ignorant to exactly how that process goes to be honest. I am sure it differs by State just as most other laws, but either a dog has been trained to be a service dog, or one hasn't right? I don't know who pays to train SD's, or how those who are disabled obtain the dog, but in most States ID's are free so again if you already have the dog how hard would it be to obtain the ID?


Your understanding is absolutely, 100% incorrect. Service Dogs in the United States are not licensed, nor are they registered. 

Disabled handlers are legally able to train their own Service Dog, work with a trainer who has (or doesn't have) experience training Service Dogs, or they can obtain the dog from an organization that raises and trains Service Dogs. Many of the SD handlers on this board have selected and trained their own dogs.

I do not know whether human ID cards are free in any states, but in NY (where I currently live), a personal ID card is $15 and a driver's license is between $25 and $65. It's certainly not free. Not sure how that is relevant to licensing or ID-ing Service Dogs, anyway.

And there are ALREADY laws in place that protect the rights of disabled persons with Service Dogs. The ADA defines what is considered a Service Dog, when and where they must be allowed, when and where they may be excluded. (And, as has been stated before, airports and airlines fall under a different set of laws from those.)


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

The woman who owns the dog is ata fault, service dog or not.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> Point is; the dog should not have bitten anyone. The handler of that dog is responsible for the behavior.


Agreed as well.

The thing is, we still do not know whether this dog was, in fact, a Service Dog or not. Just because it was not a dog used for mobility, hearing, or visual impairment does not mean it was NOT a Service Dog. It could also have been an ESA, as many airlines will and do fly ESAs. This is not sufficiently addressed in the lawsuit.

We also don't know what the person was doing at the time she was bitten. It says she was not tormenting or aggravating the dog, but it doesn't say whether she maybe accidentally kicked the dog or stepped on the dog. Or did something else that inflicted pain and caused the bite. Also not sufficiently addressed in the lawsuit.

I guess we won't know what happened, how it happened, and who's to blame until this goes to court.



> Also comparing a wheelchair, or crutches to a live animal is just as ridiculous as my exaggerations- a dog has the potential to become deadly- a wheelchair....probably not so much.


The ADA considers a Service Dog to be "adaptive equipment", just like a wheelchair or crutches would be considered adaptive equipment. That's not a comparison, it's how Service Dogs are defined under the law.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> Also comparing a wheelchair, or crutches to a live animal is just as ridiculous as my exaggerations


No, it is not, because in this case, the dog is regarded as *medical equipment*. And also in regards to your examples, ridiculous or not, society is meant to make *reasonable accomodations* to persons that are disabled.

It is not reasonable to ask disabled people with service animals to show ID when they go places when nobody is asked for it to do the same things.



> Oxygen tanks by the way are not allowed on aircrafts without a prescription or doctors not because they are combustible especially with cabin pressure


Why are you talking to me like I don't know this?



> You also proved my point with your privileges examples- privileges can be taken away so when supposed SD's start attacking passengers is the public supposed to turn a blind eye?


No, they are not. However, service dogs are *not a privilege. *Since they are defined as *medical equipment* it IS a person's RIGHT to have one, and that right *cannot be removed.*



> I feel it needs to be better regulated to avoid someone's face from being chomped off- call me crazy


Crazy.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Not to beat a dead horse anymore here BUT ....

1) The ADA just celebrated its 20 anniversary so that means that those people who don't approve of any part of it had 20 years to voice their concerns or disapproval

2) The revision of the ADA was just signed after several years of debate, taking in public opinion, etc. etc.

Those people who think changes should be made to the ADA concerning SDs -- did you send in emails or make phone calls to your legislatures? Did you notify the various committees when they requested the public to send in their views, concerns, fears, or wishes?

At this point it will probably be awhile before the opportunity to weigh in on future changes comes up again.

And before anyone says they didn't know -- well I don't know how much more could have been done to get the word out.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Besides the sources and the link from this site that I already posted about the ADA here is another thread that I started back in *2008* (and it has been stickied all of this time) -- 

http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...-excerpts-ada-notice-proposed-rulemaking.html

I had put links in that thread to go to government sites for more info.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Your average person who is not disabled is clueless to the rules and regulations regarding SD's- me included. I would have thought service dogs had to undergo training to be regarded as a service dog, and that training would have to be documented- silly me

I actually think if it were me who was in need of an SD I would want documentation and certifications to protect myself and my right's. The way it is now any yahoo with a dog can slap a vest on them and call them a service dog and when that supposed service dog say bites someone on a flight that jeopardizes the person who does have a well trained dog, and a real need for that dog. Am I the only one who feels this way though?

For instance my son is autistic and asthmatic. Both of these disabilities are diagnosed and documented so he can receive individualized education from people certified to teach children with his disability. These people are also trained and certified to administer asthmatic medications while he is in school for his safety. If any teacher could just say I can teach that kid children like him could not thrive the way they do in a mainstream setting, and anyone with an early childhood degree could be left to educate my son- thats scary. I am literally dumbfounded people with SD's do not want their dogs to be regarded in a similar way. Obviously that ship has sailed, but this topic has definitely been eye opening and educational for me


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> I am literally dumbfounded people with SD's do not want their dogs to be regarded in a similar way.


Please keep in mind that when you say *people with SDs* that you are not trying to include all or even the majority of people with SDs.



> The way it is now any yahoo with a dog can slap a vest on them and call them a service dog and when that supposed service dog say bites someone on a flight that jeopardizes the person who does have a well trained dog, and a real need for that dog.


Yes, you can see why we are always talking about and against FAKERS. Why I get so upset when even some members of this Board laugh and make jokes about taking their dogs into stores. They don't see any harm in it. 

Now after this GSD incident on the plane do you think as many people will be willing to sit next to a PWD with a GSD in a plane or elsewhere? Can those people who tell me to take a chill pill - yes I've been told that in the past here - ever begin to see the damage taking an untrained dog into the public can do? There are recent cases of real SDs being attacked and even killed by other so-called SDs. Does it do the reputation of real SD teams any good when someone shows up with a dirty dog with a filthy cape going into a restaurant? All of these things are looked down on by the SD community who takes pride in their dogs. Many do want some form of national certification to protect them and their dogs. There are ongoing discussions on this very topic on several SD forums that I belong to. 

And remember - the handler must also keep the dog fine tuned. A dog is not a machine. They must be corrected for bad behavior and if the handler is not able to do so they need to call in professional help. They must be re-evaluated at different points during their career by someone who knows how to do so. Sloppy handler makes for a sloppy dog. This is why until recently most organizations required handlers to be at least 16 years old. Now people are demanding SDs for 4 year old children to take to Pre-K with them. But that is another topic and another disaster waiting *in my opinion. *


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Xeph said:


> No, it is not, because in this case, the dog is regarded as *medical equipment*. And also in regards to your examples, ridiculous or not, society is meant to make *reasonable accomodations* to persons that are disabled.
> 
> It is not reasonable to ask disabled people with service animals to show ID when they go places when nobody is asked for it to do the same things.
> 
> ...


I don't think that anyone is saying the right should be removed? But rather than ID's that are official would be a good idea to avoid "fake" instances--especially in horribly confined areas such as aircraft.

My brother had a horrible condition that resulted in many metal plates in his body. If he WANTED TO FLY he HAD to provide proper documentation proving that the metal plates were in his body as a result of a medical necessity. Granted, he was only asked about them once (apparently the medical grade metal used in most bodies these days is not picked up on metal detecors--scary!!).

It was his "RIGHT" to have that medical equipment in his body. He would have died otherwise. But he didn't have a right to fly without proper documentation about why that medical equipment was in his body.

Again, I'm not sure why standarizing or providing "licenses" much like a drivers license is a bad thing for people with SD's. NO...I don't think that any store clerk should have the right to kick an SD out of a store. But instances like this, in my opinion, would only be benefited by proving that your dog is legitimate.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> The way it is now any yahoo with a dog can slap a vest on them and call them a service dog


Yes and no. A service dog needs to have been trained in at least 3 demonstrable tasks in order to qualify.

Strauss's service training was completed by me but with help from friends that also have service dogs. I documented all of his training hours, video taped him, and when he was "certified" he went through a public access test (and passed with flying colors).



> But rather than ID's that are official would be a good idea to avoid "fake" instances--especially in horribly confined areas such as aircraft.


Because then it opens the door for me to be stopped and bothered EVERY TIME I want to go do something normally that other people do without incident every day. We already are hassled a ridiculous amount, why should we be hassled more?



> Again, I'm not sure why standarizing or providing "licenses" much like a drivers license is a bad thing for people with SD's.


Because it singles out ONE set of people, and nobody else has to do the same. It's discriminating.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Because it singles out ONE set of people, and nobody else has to do the same. It's discriminating.


I think you see wha tyou want to see. Have numerous examples in this thread not shown that people with ALL KINDS of medical equipment and conditions have to provide proper documention. It's not discriminating. EVERYONE breaking a general "rule" for flying should have to provide proper documentation!

My brother never felt discriminated against because of the f'ed way his body was reconstructed. He was happy to show the papers needed if he got stopped at the metal detectors.


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

doggiedad said:


> the vest says Companion Dog that doesn't indicate service dog
> to me. .


CCI - Canine Companions for Independence is a very legit reputable SD organization. So the term "companion" does not just mean strictly companion in the eyes of some SD agencies.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> It's not discriminating. EVERYONE breaking a general "rule" for flying should have to provide proper documentation!


And I think you're missing that I'm not just talking about flights.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Xeph said:


> And I think you're missing that I'm not just talking about flights.


 
Which I don't quite know why you ARE doing that? Considering this thread has been talking about how to NOT get NON-SD's onto flights?!


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Ok, maybe I missed it somewhere but can someone tell me exactly what a service dog is? I mean I get the seeing eye dog as a service dog of course and they should be able to go everywhere, but obviously a SD is different. 
Around here there was a flap about a school kid (in one of the the lower grades) taking a dog to school that literally made him feel better and how the school didn't want him to be able to do so. The poor little boy had some kind of behavioral problem I believe. Would this dog be considered a SD?

Generally, what do they do and who (what organizations) certified them to be service dogs?


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

codmaster said:


> Ok, maybe I missed it somewhere but can someone tell me exactly what a service dog is? I mean I get the seeing eye dog as a service dog of course and they should be able to go everywhere, but obviously a SD is different.
> Around here there was a flap about a school kid (in one of the the lower grades) taking a dog to school that literally made him feel better and how the school didn't want him to be able to do so. The poor little boy had some kind of behavioral problem I believe. Would this dog be considered a SD?
> 
> Generally, what do they do and who (what organizations) certified them to be service dogs?


The term service dog is a broad term which can include dogs such as guide dogs, assistance dogs, emotional support dogs, etc. 

Guide, seeing eye, leader dogs, etc... are what are most commonly recognized. But there are also "assistance dogs" which are dogs that help people that have some sort of physical handicap other than eyesight. For example, someone confined to a wheelchair may have an assistance dog which might help them dress, turn lights on, open doors, pick up dropped items, etc.

An emotional support dog is one that may accompany the owner/handler in public as just that - emotional support.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> Which I don't quite know why you ARE doing that?


Because I was trying to explain the Pandora's Box that is opened when you start requiring such things for SDs.



> An emotional support dog is one that may accompany the owner/handler in public as just that - emotional support.


ESAs do not have the same access rights as service dogs. You cannot take them into, say, Kohl's or a grocery store. Service dogs are allowed in both places however.


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

Xeph said:


> Because I was trying to explain the Pandora's Box that is opened when you start requiring such things for SDs.
> 
> 
> ESAs do not have the same access rights as service dogs. You cannot take them into, say, Kohl's or a grocery store. Service dogs are allowed in both places however.


Might that vary state to state or is that a nationwide law? I was pretty sure they were permitted public access here for those that can get a dr. to sign off on it.

What would be the point of having an ESA and not just a pet if it wasn't allowed public access? The only benefit I can think of would be housing rights...?


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> I was pretty sure they were permitted public access here for those that can get a dr. to sign off on it.


While it does vary by state:
3. A person with a disability has a right to be accompanied by a trained service dog which is assisting them in most public accommodations (places of business). A person with an impairment or a disability does not have a right to be accompanied by an emotional support animal unless individual state laws specifically grant this right, in which case it applies only in that state.

(Source: What is the difference between a psychiatric service dog and an emotional support animal? | Service Dog Central)

So if somebody from Louisiana has an ESA that is allowed in public places in Louisiana, if they go to New Mexico where those laws don't apply, the dog cannot enter any place of business. So people with ESAs still do not have the same access rights as those with SDs, who are allowed everywhere regardless of where they are.

It's an important distinction to make, because ESAs are NOT SDs. They aren't trained to do anything.


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

Interesting. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Xeph I can totally see why you are being defensive- living with a disability singles you out in general. Like I have mentioned my son is disabled- he acts a little different, reacts to normal everyday things differently, and requires accommodations in school that single him out from his peers. So while I understand how having to prove your need seems discriminatory because in general you are already singled out as different, I wish you could see the other side a little- walk in my shoes for a minute. 

SD's are not regulated as you guys have informed me. Any idiot can call their dog a SD and this dog is allowed to frequent places other dogs are not permitted. The reason for this is because this dog is medical equipment, and not just a dog- it provides a service to you that you otherwise can not provide yourself- which I totally agree with. But unlike medical equipment this is a living animal. Animals including humans don't have buttons you program or push on and off- they make decisions and take actions independently based on what they want to do, are trained to do, or find necessary- they have brains capable of thinking. In this way they can be unpredictable, and because there are no regulations on training and licensing this makes their unpredictability even more likely- it is up to the owner to continue training and reevaluating performance. If the owner is not diligent in their training, doesn't continue training, or doesn't have the ability/knowledge to do these two things unpredictability increases which is a danger to the owner, and general public. What if a seeing eye dogs walks their owner into traffic or makes other errors in trained judgment- someone gets hurt

People with disabilities are entitled to accommodations that enable them to live a life as close to normal as possible and independently- but it is unfair when an accommodation can potentially injure or kill someone else. So there should be a happy medium. If you need a SD that SD should be licensed like those obtaining a driver's license and evaluated every few years the same as everyone else. That SD should have an ID so the person can not be discriminated against in public places- don't you see these rules would help you and not hurt you? So what you show your ID and your dog's- no biggie I show ID to board a plane, purchase alcohol and tobacco, go to my gym, and a plethora of other places where it is required. I do this to prove I have the right to purchase and enjoy the privileges I want. This is not discrimination, but instead a process everyone endures on a daily basis to instill some order in life and ensure rules are followed and allotted to citizens.

Heck the ID could simply be clipped to the vest of the dog, but if this was a law no taxi, airline, store, restaurant, or other public venue could deny you entry to the things you have a right to experience. Supposed SD'S attacking passengers or patrons of stores is not doing anything to get the public or our government to continue your right to your medical equipment, and too many incidences like this could out right take that right away. Protect it with the proper training, licensing, and ID's as a way to ensure your needs as a person with a disability are met instead of looking at it as another way to single you out and discriminate against you It's not discrimination in the least but more of an insurance policy that would boost acceptance of dogs in public places because there would be a way to track and prove these dog's ability to do their job.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

So basically some of them are really a "companion dog" - with no special duties? Is that correct? 

How would a dog provide "emotional support" other than just being a friendly companion? As most dogs do just by being a dog.


If so, I could see where it would be very easy for some folks to "cheat", so to speak. By wanting to take them into places where dogs are usually not allowed - maybe like resturants or retail stores for example.

Are there any national regulations/laws for this?

I wold think that these dogs would be expected to have the same demeanor/behavior expected of a seeing eye dog. Don't even know that they are there usually.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Xeph said:


> While it does vary by state:
> 3. A person with a disability has a right to be accompanied by a trained service dog which is assisting them in most public accommodations (places of business). A person with an impairment or a disability does not have a right to be accompanied by an emotional support animal unless individual state laws specifically grant this right, in which case it applies only in that state.
> 
> (Source: What is the difference between a psychiatric service dog and an emotional support animal? | Service Dog Central)
> ...


VERY interesting and informative site. Thanks!


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> I wish you could see the other side a little- walk in my shoes for a minute.


But you assume I haven't been on the other side, and I have. I DIDN'T always need an SD, and actually avoided using one for the longest time. The day I fell down the stairs twice was the day I rethought it.



> If you need a SD that SD should be licensed like those obtaining a driver's license and evaluated every few years the same as everyone else.


And again, I disagree. Driving is a privilege. My right to be as normal as everybody else is not.



> That SD should have an ID so the person can not be discriminated against in public places- don't you see these rules would help you and not hurt you?


LOL! Are you KIDDING ME!? They don't HELP at all! It doesn't take much for a person to look at my ID and go "Sorry, fake, get out". So then what do I do?



> This is not discrimination, but instead a process everyone endures on a daily basis to instill some order in life and ensure rules are followed and allotted to citizens.


I'm sure that the slavers back in the day didn't think they were discriminating either, and they were just helping the poor savages 

All the things you mentioned are privileges, not rights. They can be taken away from you. Your right to enter and shop and be like everybody else cannot be revoked. And it IS discrimination when ONE faction of the disabled community needs to be ID'd and nobody else does.



> but if this was a law no taxi, airline, store, restaurant, or other public venue could deny you entry to the things you have a right to experience


You don't seem to understand that it is ALREADY law that people cannot deny those that have SDs those services. That's what the ADA is for.

Stores HAVE to allow myself and my SD access, a Taxi HAS to allow my SD to ride with me, restaurants HAVE to allow my dog in with me. 

There are also rules in place that allow a service dog to be removed (things such as soiling in the place of business, or causing a disruption like incessant whining or barking).

And the other thing is, people look at this like ignorance is the fault of the SD community, and it is NOT! Ignorance of the law on the part of business owners is a HUGE problem! They do not know what they/their employees can ask/do in regards to service dogs, and they really need to educate themselves!


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

But even you stated sometimes your RIGHT is not respected...or maybe it was someone else- either way it has been said people with SD's have been denied a service because of the dog. We will have to agree to disagree I guess because your entitled to feel discriminated against when asked for ID or to license your dogs ability to do their job, and I'm entitled to see why these two things could do more to protect your right. State ID's in general each have their own identifiable characteristics to determine authenticity. I've never been told my real ID is fake.

You also have to be able to admit there are people out there that buy the vest and imply their dogs are SD's when in fact they are not. You also have to see dogs can bite and cause people harm and even death. So why should your right to a SD in public override my right to security in a public place? Especially seeing as there is no national organization that tracks whether or not the dog does, can, and is able continue to do their intended job- it is up to the owner to have this done or not. There is no organization or law that makes evaluations of temperament necessary again up to the owner, and no way to ensure the public's or handlers safety because of these loose laws. You are adamant about your right, and yet do not care that your right is not regulated and therefore is exploited inducing bad press and injury to others?


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I also have to add that while your SD is a right you are wrong to assume driving, owning a handgun, smoking, drinking, and other similar things are not rights- they are!! You have the right at 16 to become licensed to operate a motor vehicle, you have the right to legally smoke at 18, drink at 21, and own a handgun at 21 at least in my State. These are legal right's that all require ID to enjoy and are protected as rights legally. 

In this day and age you can grocery shop online, buy clothes, furniture, and other things from the comfort of your own home- going out to purchase them is not a necessity technically Your right to enter a store can be denied disabled or not for say theft, public drunkeness, fighting, verbal threats, or many other reasons- that is completely up to the owners discretion to deny sales to any patron they want as long as it is not on the basis of discrimination on age, sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, or physical/mental disability. 

I completely respect your right to a life that is made more manageable and normal via a SD, but I don't think people should be attacked, killed, or maimed by such an animal so you can go to the store or on a vacation. Your dog should be evaluated and there should be a way to confirm these evaluations to protect the general public and yourself


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> You also have to be able to admit there are people out there that buy the vest and imply their dogs are SD's when in fact they are not.


Of course I have. I've seen them and reported them.


> But even you stated sometimes your RIGHT is not respected...or maybe it was someone else


Sometimes it isn't. We are stopped and I am asked if my dog is a service dog and I'm disabled. I answer yes to both questions, and we generally go on our way. My services have been completed, and I've only been despicably treated once (thus far). The many other times I've been stopped it was somebody unfamiliar with myself and my dog and were ignorant/unsure of his status and what they could ask me.



> So why should your right to a SD in public override my right to security in a public place?


It doesn't override your right to security. If you don't like the service dog, you certainly don't have to go near it. It's not like that hasn't happened to us before (the screamers are SO much fun).



> You are adamant about your right, and yet do not care that your right is not regulated and therefore is exploited inducing bad press and injury to others?


The idea that I like things as they are and thus do not care about the exploiters is completely false. I do care and am angered when people abuse the title of service dog. And when I see a faker, I turn them in (to the staff of the place I am shopping). Many SD users do.

What I care about is that my right is not regulated in a way that restricts said right in a way that further reduces my ability to try and lead as normal a life as possible.

EVERYBODY is carded (at some point in time) for alcohol, cigarettes, entrance to a club, transportation, etc. But not everybody is carded for just wanting to go and buy their groceries.



> and no way to ensure the public's or handlers safety because of these loose laws.


That's not hard to do. It's called "Do not bother the service dog" (it is actually illegal to interfere with a service dog while it is working).


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Xeph said:


> But you assume I haven't been on the other side, and I have. I DIDN'T always need an SD, and actually avoided using one for the longest time. The day I fell down the stairs twice was the day I rethought it.
> 
> And again, I disagree. Driving is a privilege. My right to be as normal as everybody else is not.
> 
> ...


*True SD's yes! Fake ones no! *

*I am curious if you are suggesting that organizations do not have the right to insure that anyone with a dog with a vest should be allowed in with no questions allowed?*


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Is flying a privelege or a right? If a privilege, from who? 

If a right, then why should I have to show an picture ID to board the plane? Or for that matter to pick up my checked bag in some airports?


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> In this day and age you can grocery shop online, buy clothes, furniture, and other things from the comfort of your own home- going out to purchase them is not a necessity technically


So you really think that those with SDs needn't go out at all and should just stay home and shop online, so they don't bother anybody? Winky face or not, that's certainly what you infer.



> Your right to enter a store can be denied disabled or not for say theft, public drunkeness, fighting, verbal threats, or many other reasons- that is completely up to the owners discretion to deny sales to any patron they want as long as it is not on the basis of discrimination on age, sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, or physical/mental disability.


But all things you stated apply *across the board* to everybody.



> Your dog should be evaluated and there should be a way to confirm these evaluations to protect the general public and yourself


And who decides what the criteria is, and what dog meets it? Because different dogs require different skills which equals different temperaments and different personalities.



> *I am curious if you are suggesting that organizations do not have the right to insure that anyone with a dog with a vest should be allowed in with no questions allowed?*


I did not say that. And questions ARE allowed to be asked.

1. Is that a service dog?
2. Are you disabled?
3. What does this dog do to mitigate your disability.



> If a right, then why should I have to show an picture ID to board the plane? Or for that matter to pick up my checked bag in some airports?


Couldn't tell ya. What I can tell you is that EVERYBODY must do this, and not just one portion of people.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Xeph said:


> So you really think that those with SDs needn't go out at all and should just stay home and shop online, so they don't bother anybody? Winky face or not, that's certainly what you infer.
> 
> But all things you stated apply *across the board* to everybody.
> 
> ...


The question that you raised above is a VERY GOOD one - how about a govt. license department who could test the dog and insure as far as possible that the dog is safe for the public? Or would that interfere too much with your rights?

*"And who decides what the criteria is, and what dog meets it? Because different dogs require different skills which equals different temperaments and different personalities."*

*"1. Is that a service dog?*
*2. Are you disabled?*
*3. What does this dog do to mitigate your disability."*

And what do the owners get to do with the answers?

How about:
"Yes"
"Yes"
"He helps me!" or maybe "He makes me feel secure"

Was the last answer sufficient so the person should be allowed to bring the dog into the food market?

Should the person get into the store or was their "rights" interfered with?


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

It's a privilege IMO since it is not necessary to live and the reason for ID comes from 9/11, and before then to make sure you didn't steal someone's ticket and try to fly, smuggle in or out children, leave the country as a wanted criminal, and so on. 

Xeph, I would never touch, speak to, or interfere with a SD. But in a grocery store line you can't avoid one coming up behind you, you can't just miss your plane because of the presence of a dog, or avoid going down an aisle where a patron is with an SD. Also, you can't guarantee a SD won't get away from it's owner. If something spooks the dog and it jerks free from the owner, or the owner isn't holding onto the dog in the first place and it runs off it is a loose dog. Since it is up to you to ensure your dog's training and temperament what if your dog wasn't solid, developed aggression, or fear issues? Some may discontinue use of that dog, but others who are attached or unable to financially obtain another dog may not. 

I don't like government myself or too much regulation- life is a slippery slope and Pandora's box is everywhere. However, we're talking about an animal who by definition is not mechanical and capable of posing a real risk to the public. Just playing around on Google I was able to find quite a few articles about attacks and error on the part of SD's that resulted in owner and bystander injury. Since it is your right to have this dog it should also be your right to have it evaluated for effectiveness and continued training. My son's nebulizer is tuned up every year paid for by insurance, his occupational, speech, and behavioral therapies evaluated as well by people licensed to do so. This ensures he continues to get what he needs and secures his right to accommodations that are tailored to him. Regulation doesn't have to be a bad thing


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Xeph, I do not think disabled people should be confined to their homes- I was showing you in an outlandish manner that leaving your home is not technically necessary and a privilege just like you view driving, drinking, and smoking to be. You chose to go to the grocery store like I chose to buy a bottle of wine here and there- these are choices and not required to live. I'm sarcastic in real life don't take my examples seriously but the intent behind them. I suck at being tactful and am sorry if you honestly thought I was inferring you should live your life pent up inside- that was not how I meant to make you feel and I am sorry if that is the way it was taken

The criteria for a SD could easily be tailored to the disability- seeing eye dog, dog for hearing, emotional support dog, and so on. SD's provide an array of services each able to be proven or shown to be executed. Look at K-9's- they are evaluated for ability to do the job so it's not exactly impossible right?

As far as my examples that apply to everyone across the board what about your disability that does not apply to everyone across the board? You are entitled to things I am not because in the real world very few things can be the same for everyone. Everyone who is disabled and requires a SD should be treated the same, and everyone else who does not require a SD should not be able to take their dogs in public places. Regulation and licensing would weed out the fakers and decrease bad press. I'm not understanding why you feel it is discriminating to make all SD's licensed and all others not allowed to have their dogs in stores and on flights- it's as fair as fair can get


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Xeph said:


> ............
> Sometimes it isn't. We are stopped and I am asked if my dog is a service dog and I'm disabled. I answer yes to both questions, and we generally go on our way. .......
> 
> It doesn't override your right to security. If you don't like the service dog, you certainly don't have to go near it. It's not like that hasn't happened to us before (the screamers are SO much fun).
> ...


Is walking/sitting next to a SD considered interfering with them? So if I get bit then too bad?

This is obviously a very difficult topic and not very clear cut - and i think there has to be a very good balance among the "rights" of the public and the "rights" of the individuals.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

BTW, doesn't a handicapped driver have to prove to the DMV that they are handicapped to get a handicapped plate that allows them special acces to handicapped parking plates? Appears to be similar to being allowed to bring a dog into places where most people cannot bring their dog. A special access right!


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Codmaster that is my point put a little harshly though. I agree SD's are a right- I just also feel the general public has a right to safety. With this plane incident it doesn't appear the woman antagonized the dog on the flight. It also isn't clear if the dog was a real SD- but now that I know there is no actual regulation on what a SD has to be I wonder what is a real SD? A SD is defined as dog who can provide a service for their disabled owner the owner themselves can not complete alone, but I don't see anything on temperament requirements nor are there standards set forth to prove these dogs can and are providing the service. Seems a little discriminatory to me for us non disabled citizens. We have to trust the owner has trained, tested, and continues to evaluate their dog and has the knowledge and capability to do so- thats a lot of trust given to a domesticated animal. Maybe they should start giving licenses out because people say they can drive, or allow me to fly the plane because I say I can. Maybe tomorrow I'll go perform surgery because I think I can do that too, and then in the afternoon be the judge in a criminal trial. 

Everyday people are required to prove they can perform their jobs and since SD's are technically working they should too


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Zoeys mom said:


> Codmaster that is my point put a little harshly though. I agree SD's are a right- I just also feel the general public has a right to safety. With this plane incident it doesn't appear the woman antagonized the dog on the flight. It also isn't clear if the dog was a real SD- but now that I know there is no actual regulation on what a SD has to be I wonder what is a real SD? A SD is defined as dog who can provide a service for their disabled owner the owner themselves can not complete alone, but I don't see anything on temperament requirements nor are there standards set forth to prove these dogs can and are providing the service. Seems a little discriminatory to me for us non disabled citizens. We have to trust the owner has trained, tested, and continues to evaluate their dog and has the knowledge and capability to do so- thats a lot of trust given to a domesticated animal. Maybe they should start giving licenses out because people say they can drive, or allow me to fly the plane because I say I can. Maybe tomorrow I'll go perform surgery because I think I can do that too, and then in the afternoon be the judge in a criminal trial.
> 
> Everyday people are required to prove they can perform their jobs and since SD's are technically working they should too


Very well said!


----------



## Larien (Sep 26, 2010)

I have a question kind of relating to all of this, and I honestly know nothing about anything regarding air travel and pets, and I'm too tired to google: When someone flies with a pet, regardless of whether or not it's in the cargo hold or cabin, is the animal in any way looked at by security or put through x-rays? And now more specifically, are SDs screened by security or would that not be allowed? Because what's to stop someone from slapping a vest on a dog, making it swallow a bomb and then getting on a flight? I apologize if this seems like a dumb question but as I scanned through this thread it popped in my mind and I became curious.

Anyway, I really believe that the fault here is with the owner first and then the airline, like many others have said - let's say it WAS a "real" SD by some of your definitions,, and let's pretend it had "ID" of some kind, it still DID bite someone in the face, and that's the fault of the owner for selecting an ill tempered dog or by not training it properly. Say what you will about the current regulations (or lack thereof) but the fact is, apparently, that there is no such national ID/temperament testing program in place for the vast array of SDs in the environment at present, and so that means that it is ultimately up to the owner of said animal to take it upon themselves to have a well mannered, nice dog. If this person trained the animal themselves, then in internet terms, "they did it wrong," and they are to blame. The airline is possibly at fault for perhaps not asking the questions it was legally allowed to ask, but either way, they allowed a dog on their plane, and the dog bit someone. It's their turf, so they are responsible for what happens to someone else on that turf as a result of someone else they allowed in. But then again, I am not versed in aviation/liability laws and the like, so what do I know. xD Just my opinion then, I guess.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

OK everyone.

First off it doesn't matter what Jackie's opinions are here. She is not the one who made the rules. Stand down for a minute.

If you ask ten SD owners their views on having national ID and certifications there is a good chance that at least 5 of those will say yes. The reason only certain questions can be asked, the reason why IDs are not required, the reason National or even State certification is not required is because THAT IS THE WAY CONGRESS DECIDED IT SHOULD BE DONE. 

Service dog handlers did not get together and march on Congress and demand these laws. Service dog organizations did not start letter writing campaigns demanding that airlines not ask to see documentation. A good many in the SD community have been asking for a tightning of the regulations and clarifications for years. 

The link that Jackie gave to SDC with additional information that a couple thanked her for is owned by a person who in fact has been trying to promote sensible requirements for years. She has been getting imput from the SD community trying to come up with suggestions on how to put a National Testing/ID into effect. Does she like that such a thing is necessary? - NO. But she sees that because of the fakers and ill-trained dogs claimed to be SDs that "the writing is on the wall" and it seems to be only a matter of time before this is the way it will be because this is the way things are going.

It is not the SD community that sits back and gives a silent OK to the fakers. They get more upset than any posters here because it does effect their daily lives. 

We currently are trying to promote education so people know what a real SD should look and act like. But most don't seem interested until something like this happens. 

I don't need any answers but those of you who are unbelieving of how things are -- how long have you been a member here? Have you ever gone down into the SD section and looked around? Have you ever read any of our discussion threads there about fakers and the potential for a disaster looming around the corner? How many of you chuckled when on other spots here on the board someone talks about their dog going to the store with them or riding on the plane have just said "oh well" and gave not another thought to it. When the discussions were open how many sent a simple email or phone call to their representative? 

I for one about stood up and cheered when I heard that Congress finally put their foot down about service monkeys in stores, pot-bellied pigs, horses in Target and on and on and on. You may say there should be a law, well there is. Just like there are laws against child abuse, murder, and jay-walking. People do what they want. There was a big loop hole for service animals and people danced through it. 

Catch the fakers and don't give them a slap on the wrist. Toss their sorry b___s in jail and charge them a fine. Put in on their permanent record so everytime they apply for a job it is there. Don't laugh at their jokes about how they get around the system but let them know how scummy they are. 

Yes, this is a very very sore subject with me.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> When someone flies with a pet, regardless of whether or not it's in the cargo hold or cabin, is the animal in any way looked at by security or put through x-rays? And now more specifically, are SDs screened by security or would that not be allowed?


When you arrive at the airport with a dog in a crate to be loaded into the cargo hold, and these are regular plastic "airline approved" crates that most of us own, the dog is removed. They have someone remove the bedding and the toys. The crate is examined and so is the bedding and the toys before going back into the crate. The dog is wanded and its collar checked. The dog is placed back into the crate and off it goes with the examiner. 

When a SD goes through security it is stripped of its harness etc. The equipment goes through the metal detector. The dog is wanded even under its belly and between its legs. The handler going through the security checkpoint is then allowed to put the equipment back onto the dog. The only experience I have ever had a part of with a SD and a SDIT went like clockwork and all the airline employees were very professional and helpful. The PWD, I and her SD were escorted up to and through the security checkpoint and it was a quick as could be. I was standing there with my purse over my shoulder, my shoes in one hand, and the dog's harness in my other. The PWD and SD were going through their line and I hurried over to them and got the dog in harness before I had a chance to put my shoes back on.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> The airline is possibly at fault for perhaps not asking the questions it was legally allowed to ask


I don't remember reading anywhere that the airline employees did not do their job by not asking if the dog was a SD working for a legally disabled handler. But remember people lie and have fake ID which thanks to the Internet is not hard to get hold of. 

I don't want to lay the blame on anyone at this point. That is for the court to determine. 

Handler guilty? Maybe or maybe not. Maybe they were returning from just picking up a new SD and had no idea how the dog would react. Maybe the dog was their SD for years and the owner knew the dog got motion sickness so tried to medicate the dog causing the dog to react in a strange fashion. Maybe the dog had an unknown medical problem and the stress of the flight was the final straw and made it act differently than its normal self. Maybe it was the handler's first flight (or tenth) and they tended to panic in a plane which stressed the dog. Who knows. I'm not giving any excuses but let it all come out in court. 

Airline guilty? Maybe the employee was in a rush to get home or had personal problems on their mind. Maybe they didn't pick up on red flags about the dog and handler. Or maybe they did indeed follow policy down to crossing the t's and dotting the i's. Maybe the handler was a world class lier.

Woman guilty? No one deserves to be attacked and bitten in the face even if she stepped on the dog's toes or sat and stared at the dog. A proper SD would have handled it or at the most alerted the handler that the dog was uncomfortable.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

I think service dogs should have some sort of official identification on them. Because even though they are medical equipment, dogs are banned from many establishments. Crutches and wheelchairs aren't banned from anywhere. I see it as how handicapped people have to show proof of being handicapped when they park in a handicapped spot. Because otherwise, it's illegal to park there, and by not needing proof it leaves it open for abuse by others.

Obviously, the owner is to blame for lying about her dog. The woman is probably suing the airlines because she can get more money out of them.


----------



## Katey (Aug 11, 2010)

Beyond the SD issue, I have a bigger problem with the legal issue at hand, and that fact that this tort is ridiculous. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt to this woman and sympathize with her if she was a victim of a dog attack, but the ridiculousness of this tort -- and the borderline extortion of third-party airlines/airports/air authority rather than the owner responsible for the dog -- really makes me question her credibility.


This is obviously a civil suit -- I'd be interested to see what criminal action was taken against the dog's owner by law enforcement, if any. To me, that would be more informative factually and a better determinant of whether this dog really made an unprovoked attack.

The fact the owner is not among the defendants even though s/he is potentially criminally culpable is a strong indication that the plaintiff is just looking to cash in, and the dog's owner didn't have enough cash to make it worth it, so she's suing big corporations instead. (In response to one of the earliest posters re: the suit being leveled against multiple airlines, I'm assuming the other airlines are affiliates of SkyWest.) 

The circumstances look fishy to me as well on the whole SD issue, and why a GSD -- especially one supposedly inclined to unprovoked attacks -- is in the cabin to begin with, and whether his "instability" intimidated other passengers prior to the alleged attack.

On another note -- As a student of legal writing, I am extremely unimpressed by the low quality of the documents attached to the article, which makes me just that much more suspicious that these lawyers/the plaintiff might just be of the ambulance-chasing variety we all know and love. 

As far as I'm concerned, this story doesn't look good whichever way you slice it.


----------



## JessWelsch (Oct 2, 2010)

ILGHAUS said:


> And into all of this mix let me toss in the option that the owner of the dog did not claim the dog to be a SD but an *ESA*. (These are not covered at all by the ADA.) ESA = Emotional Support Animal.
> 
> As to the poster about *Therapy Dogs* -- no they have no more rights on an airplane than they do on the ground. They have no more rights than any other pet dog. A Therapy Dog does not have automatic access into the hospitals or nursing homes where they visit. They must be invited in by the facility management.
> 
> Just remember - all of these dogs must follow the regs that have been put into place by Federal, State, or Local laws. You may think a law is either not restrictive enough or maybe too restricting. Don't like something then like any other law speak up through the proper channels and work toward a change.


Ok then when she was asked if it was a SD or SDIT she said it was a ESA? And the airlines said "ok".... (just guessing...) seems like both the airlines fault (for allowing it) and the owners (for not being reposnsible and looking up laws.


----------



## JessWelsch (Oct 2, 2010)

Zoeys mom said:


> Disabled people don't deserve a free pass on things that threaten other people's safety.



DO I deserve a "free pass"? No.

Do I think it's fair that because the airline and/or the owner (whomever is responsible) messed up and a untrained, unsocialized dog was on board a plane and bit some lady (which sucks, but it isnt my fault) I should have to suffer the consequences? No. 

Do I think if I was required to go through elaborate government testing with my SDIT so that she could train with me in public it would affect my quality of life? Yes, I do. Jordan might be young but we are making great strides in training and she already helps me out in a lot of ways. I think it would stop me from doing what Jordan and I do, independently daily, which is simply living. Think about how many American's have SDs or SDITs! Think about how LONG it would take to test, certify, etc. each and every one through the ADA. And on top of that how would every establishment in America be told (and understand) that the new law is *this* vest and ID card is OKAY... but these arent.... I mean it's a huge undertaking and im sure that is why it hasn't been done before. I get that ppl pass off pets as SDs but it isn't something that is going to be easily stopped. I find educating people and answering questions is so far the best way to deal with it. 

For every business that has a good experience with a *real* SD, that's one more business that might not think negatively about them. 

No offense meant to anyone; this is strictly my feelings and opinions.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> Ok then when she was asked if it was a SD or SDIT she said it was a ESA? And the airlines said "ok".... (just guessing...) seems like both the airlines fault (for allowing it) and the owners (for not being reposnsible and looking up laws.


I did not say that the owner said the dog was not a SD but an ESA -- I just tossed that in as a possibility. 

For those not aware, ESAs *are allowed* to fly in the cabin of planes with their owners. 

Cut & Paste:

*24876 *
*Federal Register *
/ Vol. 68, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations​ 

4. _Require documentation for emotional __support animals: _​ 
With respect to an animal used for emotional support (which need not​have specific training for that function),
airline personnel may require current


documentation (
_i.e., _not more than one year 

old) on letterhead from a mental health​ 
professional stating (1) that the passenger has

a mental health-related disability; (2) that​ 

having the animal accompany the passenger

is necessary to the passenger​​
’s mental health​
​

or treatment or to assist the passenger (with
his or her disability); and (3) that the
individual providing the assessment of the



passenger is a licensed mental health

professional and the passenger is under his
or her professional care. Airline personnel
may require this documentation as a
condition of permitting the animal to
accompany the passenger in the cabin. The
purpose of this provision is to prevent abuse
by passengers that do not have a medical
need for an emotional support animal and to
ensure that passengers who have a legitimate
need for emotional support animals are
permitted to travel with their service animals
on the aircraft. Airlines are not permitted to
require the documentation to specify the type
of mental health disability, ​
​
​​
_e.g., _panic attacks.​
​






​Sorry for the weird appearance but the copy will not let me take out the additional lines and spaces. I try to fix and it jumps back to original.​


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> I'd be interested to see what criminal action was taken against the dog's owner by law enforcement, if any. To me, that would be more informative factually and a better determinant of whether this dog really made an unprovoked attack.


Which law enforcement agency would that be? State? County of Airport? What criminal law would the handler have violated? Local leash law? Lying?


----------



## Katey (Aug 11, 2010)

> Quote:
> I'd be interested to see what criminal action was taken against the dog's owner by law enforcement, if any. To me, that would be more informative factually and a better determinant of whether this dog really made an unprovoked attack.
> 
> Quote:
> Which law enforcement agency would that be? State? County of Airport? What criminal law would the handler have violated? Local leash law? Lying?


Admittedly, jurisdiction could be tricky -- I believe airports may fall under federal jurisdiction, but I'm not certain of it. But if there's something to charge, the authorities will figure out where to do it.

Depending on the circumstances, there are any number of criminal laws the handler may have violated, ranging from 2nd degree murder to a misdemeanor for failing to quarantine a rabid dog. Mostly likely the handler would be looking at a felony or misdemeanor for injury by a dangerous dog, depending on the severity of the injury.

Of course, the other details of the case could change things, too, such as the dog's health, status as SD, bitework training, past behavior, provocation, handler's training, conditions of the dog boarding the plane, etc. 

We really don't know any of that, which is my primary point, and why all this seems a little "off" to me -- cases like this should be more clear-cut, and in the event of a person's injury (especially on an aircraft these days) law enforcement is compelled to investigate whether or not the victim wanted to go to court. That kind of investigation would answer a lot of the questions on this thread and assign culpability to the parties involved -- another reason I'm skeptical of the civil suit.

The purpose of the civil suit now is not to do a true investigation, but for the plaintiff's lawyers (rightfully or not) to demonstrate the woman's injury/trauma to a jury, so the airlines have to pay out a huge settlement, 49% of which will go straight to the lawyers. Not exactly an impartial evaluation of the facts.

Please keep in mind that all of this is just my opinion based on the few things the article reveals, and entirely in the context of my interest in this case from a legal perspective. It's been a very interesting thread to read, and I've learned a lot about SDs, airline policy, etc. I'm speculating/opining as much as everyone else here, and certainly don't mean to offend. 

This case should be taken seriously, as should all injury cases. Regardless of what happens, I hope for the best for the woman attacked, the handler, and the dog, whatever that may be.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Katey said:


> Admittedly, jurisdiction could be tricky -- I believe airports may fall under federal jurisdiction, but I'm not certain of it. But if there's something to charge, the authorities will figure out where to do it.
> 
> Depending on the circumstances, there are any number of criminal laws the handler may have violated, ranging from 2nd degree murder to a misdemeanor for failing to quarantine a rabid dog. Mostly likely the handler would be looking at a felony or misdemeanor for injury by a dangerous dog, depending on the severity of the injury.
> 
> ...


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Larien said:


> I have a question kind of relating to all of this, and I honestly know nothing about anything regarding air travel and pets, and I'm too tired to google: When someone flies with a pet, regardless of whether or not it's in the cargo hold or cabin, is the animal in any way looked at by security or put through x-rays? And now more specifically, are SDs screened by security or would that not be allowed? Because what's to stop someone from slapping a vest on a dog, making it swallow a bomb and then getting on a flight? I apologize if this seems like a dumb question but as I scanned through this thread it popped in my mind and I became curious.


As opposed to a human swallowing a bomb? As is shown my my brother's body being full of metal plates....seldom if ever do metal detectors go off because of it.


----------



## Katey (Aug 11, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> Katey said:
> 
> 
> > Admittedly, jurisdiction could be tricky -- I believe airports may fall under federal jurisdiction, but I'm not certain of it. But if there's something to charge, the authorities will figure out where to do it.
> ...


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> *What would your attitude be if I smacked/kicked your service dog who happened to be under my seat when I sat in a public place when your dog who is not tested growled at me?*


The first thing I'd do is call the police and have you arrested. Why would my dog even be under YOUR seat?



> We have to trust the owner has trained, tested, and continues to evaluate their dog and has the knowledge and capability to do so- *thats a lot of trust given to a domesticated animal.*


Yeah, it is. And we have to trust our dogs infinitely more than you do.



> Is walking/sitting next to a SD considered interfering with them? So if I get bit then too bad?


Of course it's not. However, petting them, talking to them, getting in their way while they're performing a task is definitely interfering.



> *Did the woman on the plane who was bitten go near the dog? What if she happened to be allergic to dog hair? Does she have any "Rights" or just you? *


Clearly she had to go near the dog...she was bitten. If she's allergic to dog hair, depending on her allergy, she can certainly take allergy medication. People board planes EVERY DAY with no dogs aboard....but individuals are certainly laden with pet hair.



> *Actually, generally not everybody is carded to buy liquor - I haven't been for many years but I was when there was a question of my age. I think that I was discriminated against also. What do you think?*


I think you just proved my point that everybody is carded for something at some point. You WERE carded. And no, you weren't discriminated against, because everybody has to show ID for that. Once you get to a certain age, of course people stop asking. A 60 year old is clearly going to look older than 21, so why WOULD you card them? But earlier in their life...somebody asked for it.



> *Or she had a phobia about big dogs - isn't that a disability if she absolutely is scared to death of a GSD? Does SHE have any rights in this case?*


By definition, probably not. How much does it impact her life? What can she not do for herself? My SD friend and I have dealt with people who were phobic of dogs. Not people that are just scared, or scream just to make a scene, but truly terrified. If it's possible for us we move. We won't leave, but we'll move.



> I'm not understanding why you feel it is discriminating to make all SD's licensed and all others not allowed to have their dogs in stores and on flights


Because you seem to keep missing the point that nobody else has to do this. You can walk into a store and just shop. I would have to stop *every time* and be examined, as if I'm some sort of criminal. And what is my recourse if my ID is denied?



> "He helps me!" or maybe "He makes me feel secure"
> 
> Was the last answer sufficient so the person should be allowed to bring the dog into the food market?


That answer is nowhere near acceptable. Making somebody feel secure is NOT a trained task. ANY dog can do that just by being in the presence of their owner. An SD must have demonstrable trained tasks.

BTW Ilghaus brought up a great change in regulations that I do agree with, and that's the removal of ponies, monkeys, etc from use in public service work.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> Any idiot can call their dog a SD and this dog is allowed to frequent places other dogs are not permitted.


Well, again, that is not true. 

A dog is ONLY considered to be a Service Dog and allowed public access if the following requirements are met:

(1) The dog has been trained to perform SPECIFIC TASKS that mitigate his or her handler's disability. The minimum required number of tasks is three. Providing "emotional support" or "being calming" to the person is not considered a trained task. Trained tasks need to be demonstrable on command. (Even Seizure Alert dogs who would only alert if a person is about to suffer a seizure are trained additional tasks that are demonstrable - such as bringing medication, for example.)

(2) The handler who is with the dog has to be the person with a disability. In some states, trainers also have access rights while working with an SDIT, but in most places, the trained dog must be with the disabled person to be allowed into stores. (In other words, if I adopted a former Service Dog, I would NOT have public access rights, even if the dog is trained specific tasks.)

(3) In some states, the law requires how the dog needs to be identified in public, whether it needs to wear a vest, orange collar and lead, or whatever. In some states, there's also a "Service Dog" tag that you get for your dog when the dog is licensed with your county.

When you are in public with a Service Dog, people MAY ask you the following questions:

(1) "Is that a Service Dog?"
(2) "Are you disabled?"
(3) "What is the dog trained to do for you?"

In most areas, Service Dogs may also be EXCLUDED from access to buildings if the dog behaves in a way that is threatening or unsafe, or the owner does not control the dog. If your Service Dog barks and lunges at another person, a store owner CAN ask the Service Dog and handler to leave. If the dog is allowed to run loose through the store out of the supervision of its owner, or pees on the floor, they CAN also ask the person with the Service Dog to leave.

The problem is NOT licensing and regulating Service Dogs and their handlers. The problem is educating stores and businesses on what their rights are, what constitutes a Service Dog, what they may ask to find out whether a dog in their store is a Service Dog.

...



> *What if she happened to be allergic to dog hair? Does she have any "Rights" or just you? *


If you are a person with allergies and you find yourself in a venue where you are seated next to or near someone with a Service Dog, you have the right to ask the business you are patronizing to make a reasonable accommodation for you. In the case of being on an airplane, the airline would need to accommodate you by finding you a seat where you would not be close to the dog.

You do NOT have the right to tell a person with a Service Dog that they need to leave because you are allergic. But you should expect reasonable accommodations to be made to account for your medical issue as well, such as having a different seat offered.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Xeph said:


> The first thing I'd do is call the police and have you arrested. Why would my dog even be under YOUR seat?
> *Good question but - *
> *Why didn't you answer the question that was asked? Couldn't?????*
> *BTW, On a plane would you buy your dog a seat? Where else would you put him? On your lap, maybe?*
> ...


Your answer are a perfect example of a "sense of entitlement"! All too common today among a lot of folks.

You are handicapped and that truly is a tragedy for anyone, but you do not want to be treated equally just better!


Try hard to remember this - a bit oe true wisdom from Star Trek!

The Good of the Many over the Good of the Few! Think about it.

Have a nice day!


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> *BTW, On a plane would you buy your dog a seat? Where else would you put him? On your lap, maybe?*


My dog and I have to sit in the bulkhead seat. It's the only place he fits. Dogs cannot legally sit IN a seat. He lays on the floor.



> *Would you arrest the woman who was bitten on the plane too? On the charge that she presented an attractive nuisance maybe?*


Not if she didn't kick or provoke the dog. But nobody knows WHAT caused the bite, from what I've read.



> *Why didn't you answer the question that was asked? Couldn't?????*


I did answer the question asked. Just not the way you wanted it answered. What you suggested you'd do was kick my dog for growling at you. Kicking my dog is illegal, and that is the point.



> *Where did I say I was going to approach your dog? I would be more concerned about an unkown and untested large dog approaching me.*


You asked if sitting or walking past the dog is interfering. I said no. I also explained what WAS interfering.



> *The woman was sitting in her airplane seat when bitten. Are you suggesting that she should not have taken her paid for seat? *


Of course not, but you seem to think I am.



> *Where should the dog stay on a flight in your own expert opinion?*


If the dog is a service dog and is a LARGE dog, my experience has been that the only place the dog CAN be is the bulkhead seat. The floor area is (barely) large enough for the dog to lie down in. A dog CANNOT fit in between the seats anywhere else, and obviously they cannot lay down in the aisle.



> *Pay attention! Not everybody is carded for age!*


*PAY ATTENTION! *Why would you card somebody for alcohol if it wasn't age related!? In fact, you yourself said *I haven't been for many years but I was when there was a question of my age.*



> *BTW some allergies are actually* *life threatening if they have an attack. But not to worry - it is only someone else not you!*


Go back and read what I wrote. Here! I'll make it even easier for you:
If she's allergic to dog hair, *depending on her allergy*, she can certainly take allergy medication.

But I still fail to see your point. What if a person with a severe allergy to dogs ends up sitting next to a person that has clothes that are full of dog hair? Is the person with hair on their clothes supposed to get up and move?



> *Of course you won't leave - why did I know that already.*


Why should we have to? We have just as much right to be there as anybody else does.



> *But yet that is what the parents of that little boy wanted from the school department regardless of what it did to the class or all of the other students having an untested large dog in the class with a bunch of little kids. Odds are that the dog is fine BUT .*


But that dog that was mentioned was NOT an SD. It was an ESA (at best).



> You are handicapped and that truly is a tragedy for anyone, but you do not want to be treated equally just better!


Bullcrap ^_^

I want to do what everybody else gets to do. Shop without being hassled. Go out to dinner without being hassled. Take a vacation without being bothered. How is that asking to be treated "better"?


----------



## JessWelsch (Oct 2, 2010)

Xeph said:


> Bullcrap ^_^
> 
> I want to do what everybody else gets to do. Shop without being hassled. Go out to dinner without being hassled. Take a vacation without being bothered. How is that asking to be treated "better"?


*THIS* is exactly what I want.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

Xeph said:


> ...Go back and read what I wrote. Here! I'll make it even easier for you:
> If she's allergic to dog hair, *depending on her allergy*, she can certainly take allergy medication.
> 
> But I still fail to see your point. What if a person with a severe allergy to dogs ends up sitting next to a person that has clothes that are full of dog hair? Is the person with hair on their clothes supposed to get up and move?


Not getting into this discussion except for this one point.

Some people cannot "certainly take allergy medication." when dealing with serious allergies. One of my best friends has to live in a "safe house" because she has mutiple chemical sensitivity and believe me, allergy medication doesn't touch her allergies! 

She's also allergic to numerous other things including your service dog and she can end up in anaphylactic shock if around him or her (she always has an EpiPen handy). So please don't take allergies so lightly when discussing them and defending your viewpoint because technically, in the worst case scenario, your right to have a service dog infringes on her right to stay alive.

And to answer your question, if in theory she were on a plane and ended up sitting next to, or being close to, a person with dog hair on his/her clothing, she'd have to get off the plane or be seated quite a distance away.

FWIW when I visit her I have to take special clothing with me. I have to shower with soap without scent, including washing my hair with unscented shampoo, before putting on the special clothes and shoes. After I put them on, I can't touch my other clothing, get in my van, or be near anything I brought from home.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

Gayle, I am fully aware that many people have severe allergies (I have a severe allergy to certain medications myself). I'm just saying what is the person with the SD supposed to do? Sucky situation for both, but the person with the SD has just as much right to be on the flight as the person with the allergy.

People are assuming that I don't know that some people have allergies that are more severe than others, and I do (heck, my brother has to use a nebulizer due to allergies and severe asthma). But just like people don't/can't know that there's going to be person with an SD on a plane/bus/what have you, how are SD owners supposed to know who has severe allergies? And then what do you do to appease BOTH parties?


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

Xeph said:


> Gayle, I am fully aware that many people have severe allergies (I have a severe allergy to certain medications myself). I'm just saying what is the person with the SD supposed to do? Sucky situation for both, but the person with the SD has just as much right to be on the flight as the person with the allergy.
> 
> People are assuming that I don't know that some people have allergies that are more severe than others, and I do (heck, my brother has to use a nebulizer due to allergies and severe asthma). But just like people don't/can't know that there's going to be person with an SD on a plane/bus/what have you, how are SD owners supposed to know who has severe allergies? And then what do you do to appease BOTH parties?


I guess the point I was trying to make is your legal right to have a SD trumps her right to stay alive!


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

I do have to wonder (seriously) how she gets through the day with such severe allergies.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Xeph said:


> My dog and I have to sit in the bulkhead seat. It's the only place he fits. Dogs cannot legally sit IN a seat. He lays on the floor.
> 
> 
> Not if she didn't kick or provoke the dog. But nobody knows WHAT caused the bite, from what I've read.
> ...


*"Equal except when that isn't convienient to you then favored".*


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> *And what is someone supposed to do if your dog bites them - do you have "diplomatic immunity" in that case also?*


No, there is no "diplomatic immunity". Where on earth are you getting these ideas?!



> *I don't get carded and a young guy does even though we are both legal.*


That is STILL NOT THE POINT. You BOTH still fall under the SAME LAWS. Even if you are not carded NOW you WERE carded at SOME POINT because the law applies to EVERYBODY, not just a certain group of people! If you came into the gas station I worked at for a couple of years and you got Philip as your cashier, it would have mattered if you were 21 or 61....he'd card you. He carded everybody, every time including regulars!



> *Then again, using your "reasoning" WHY SHOULD SHE HAVE TO just because of you and your dog!*


I never said she should have to, but again, I shouldn't have to either. I don't like listening to kids shrieking in a restaurant, but they and their parents have a right to be there. So I can either put up with it, or I can leave. 



> *AND what about the right that everyone else has to be there even allergic or with a dog phobia - don't they have as much right as you do?*


 Sure, they do, and a compromise could probably be made, but again, I'm not going to LEAVE simply because somebody else has an issue. How is that fair at all?



> *"Equal except when that isn't convienient to you then favored"*


Again, bullcrap ^_^


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Nice language but unfortunately people often resort to it when they finally realize that they don't have any rational explanation for their actions. Nice talking with you.

Let us all hope for truly EQUAL treatment one day.

As a last question - do you believe that handicapped folks should have to get a legally handicapped sticker to be able to use a handicapped parking space. Or maybe like the person with a severe allergy that you told to "just take some medicine", they can just struggle to the building from a regular spot OR just park in the spot without the sticker.

After all, why should they be hassled by having to "prove" that they are eligible for the special spot - regular non handicapped people don't have to have a sticker to park in a regular spot in a public lot, right!!!!


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Xeph nobody would be examining you but your ID in a store. My ID is examined daily for one purchase or another. If I use my credit card my ID is often asked for, when I buy cigarettes, a bottle of wine, rent a car, or other purchases I am carded. EVERYONE is carded- not just you. My son however, is examined each year to keep his accommodations and we're okay with that- resources are slim and only those in need should be receiving therapy. If it means he goes to a shrink and "plays some games" for an hour thats what it takes to continue his education in a mainstream setting- it's called part of the process. People requiring SD's shouldn't be immune to some of the same processes disabled and non-disabled citizens go through.

I get you have to trust your dog 100x more than I or anyone else does, but licensing a dog ensures the publics safety which is equally as important as yours. Before this thread I assumed SD's were professionally trained and licensed- not being disabled there would be no reason for me to think any differently. People are usually not aware of the things that do not affect them, and most technical jobs require licensing to ensure safety so I'm not sure where the shock that people want these dogs licensed comes from?

You say you would feel hassled and discriminated against should you have to show your dogs ID, but thats like someone over 21 saying they feel hassled when they buy a 6-pack and are carded.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> After all, why should they be hassled by having to "prove" that they are eligible for the special spot - regular non handicapped people don't have to have a sticker to park in a regular spot in a public lot, right!!!!


I believe they only have to prove it once. Not over and over and over again. I don't use the handicapped placard, so I don't know.



> As a last question - do you believe that handicapped folks should have to get a legally handicapped sticker to be able to use a handicapped parking space


As the law stands now, they have to.

IMO you're just mad because apparently things aren't the way YOU want them to be for the handicapped, which is for us to be treated differently than everybody else so things can be more convenient for those who already lead normal lives. If you don't like it, then bring it up with your legislators.



> Xeph nobody would be examining you but your ID in a store.


And yet again I ask, what is my recourse if somebody decides that my ID is fake?




> You say you would feel hassled and discriminated against should you have to show your dogs ID, but thats like someone over 21 saying they feel hassled when they buy a 6-pack and are carded.


Everybody gets carded at some point for buying alcohol. But not everybody with medical equipment would get carded. Only certain people with a certain type of medical equipment. What's right about that?

BTW if people are actually carding you when you use your credit card, good for them, because nobody does it anymore!


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Zoeys mom said:


> Xeph nobody would be examining you but your ID in a store. My ID is examined daily for one purchase or another. If I use my credit card my ID is often asked for, when I buy cigarettes, a bottle of wine, rent a car, or other purchases I am carded. EVERYONE is carded- not just you. My son however, is examined each year to keep his accommodations and we're okay with that- resources are slim and only those in need should be receiving therapy. If it means he goes to a shrink and "plays some games" for an hour thats what it takes to continue his education in a mainstream setting- it's called part of the process. People requiring SD's shouldn't be immune to some of the same processes disabled and non-disabled citizens go through.
> 
> I get you have to trust your dog 100x more than I or anyone else does, but licensing a dog ensures the publics safety which is equally as important as yours. Before this thread I assumed SD's were professionally trained and licensed- not being disabled there would be no reason for me to think any differently. People are usually not aware of the things that do not affect them, and most technical jobs require licensing to ensure safety so I'm not sure where the shock that people want these dogs licensed comes from?
> 
> You say you would feel hassled and discriminated against should you have to show your dogs ID, but thats like someone over 21 saying they feel hassled when they buy a 6-pack and are carded.


Very well said!


----------



## JessWelsch (Oct 2, 2010)

Zoeys mom said:


> You say you would feel hassled and discriminated against should you have to show your dogs ID, but thats like someone over 21 saying they feel hassled when they buy a 6-pack and are carded.


I just want to point out that you buy a "6 pack" on your own will. You aren't id'ed EVERY time you enter a store because you are going to or did buy a 6 pack at some point that day, week, month, or year. You are IDed once because you CHOSE to buy the alcohol. The type of ID that is being discussed here would be presented EACH and EVERY time a person with a SD or SDIT entered a public place.... do you not see how that could get frustrating?? 

I can. My hubby and I go to the movies, on dates, etc. If we go to a bar we are fully aware we will be carded (maybe multiple times) but that is a choice we make and we are prepared for it... when thinking about how many chores and errands I run on a weekly basis; getting gas, buying groceries, shopping at multiple stores for multiple things, p[aying bills, going to the drs, going out to eat, going to the movies, etc etc etc. Each and everytime I entered a place I would be required to present this ID - it would draw even MORE unwanted attention to myself, and just like in a bar I would have to understand that anyone in that establishment could ask to see the id as many times as they wanted. If that is the case I think everyone should have to show ID for going grocery shopping if they carry a purse, a cane, use a chair, use a SD, have a stroller, etc etc etc. Doesn't that sound RIDICULOUS??????? It does to me. And why? SO that non disabled people, who lead normal lives can be satisfied because they dont understand the limitations of others? Honestly, why is it other peoples business? I get that people lie and BS about a pet being a SD and that sucks for the SD and SDIT community but people lie about things every day and it sucks for those communities too - they dont have to present an ID because of it though. 

Im just being objective and trying to put it in perspective of how much time it could take away from someones life IF this were to ever happen.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

Excellent post, Jess!


----------



## JessWelsch (Oct 2, 2010)

Oh, and as hubby says: there are alternatives when buying alcohol or paying with plastic. Dont buy the alcohol or pay with cash! With a SD, a wheelchair, crutches, etc there aren't alternatives outside of not moving/going about your life. It is medical equipment... maybe I should have to show an ID because I use a chair 90% of the time... to ensure that I know how to properly operate it so I dont run in to anyone/thing and hurt anyone/thing! 

The topic is ridiculous when you look at it from the point of view that a SD is a piece of medical equipment. The difference is its alive.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I do see your point, but a stroller, cane, crutches, and the others things you mentioned do not have teeth or bite other bystanders. The reason at least for me ID should be required is to prove the dogs temperament and training like a K9. If an animal is going to be subjected to the general public in enclosed spaces like airplanes don't the airlines who will be held responsible in the event of a bite, and the passengers who may be bitten have a right to some sort of solace in knowing that animal is actually trained to do their job?

SD's aren't just dogs- they are employees for their handlers and should wear ID displaying a license number and be trained to some national standard. My dog can get the paper, mail, my shoes, find keys on command, open the fridge, and put away several items by name- mostly hubbies socks and underwear, but all the same she can work. However, she also has the tendency to want to eat people she doesn't know- her temperament would not make her a good candidate for SD work. Just because you and others would chose not to work a dog with her temperament others do and are a liability to everyone else.

A dog having visible ID on their vest is not time consuming and proofing your dogs abilities for licensing purpose every 3rd year also is no different than making people take an eye test when they renew their licenses every 4 years. It's just about safety and common sense


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

The live difference is the whole point


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

JessWelsch said:


> Oh, and as hubby says: there are alternatives when buying alcohol or paying with plastic. Dont buy the alcohol or pay with cash! With a SD, a wheelchair, crutches, etc there aren't alternatives outside of not moving/going about your life. It is medical equipment... maybe I should have to show an ID because I use a chair 90% of the time... to ensure that I know how to properly operate it so I dont run in to anyone/thing and hurt anyone/thing!
> 
> The topic is ridiculous when you look at it from the point of view that a SD is a piece of medical equipment. *The difference is its alive*.


*AND one that can be dangerous to others!* 
(as demonstrated by the animal on the plane that bit that woman)

And thus should have some type of certification showing that it is safe (as much as possible)for the public that it is going to be used in.

And that the user of the "device" is legitamate and not one of numerous "phonies" who just bought (or made) a vest for their otherwise ordinary dog.

Do you think that the public has any rights, or that they are all and only for the dog's user?


----------



## Kris10 (Aug 26, 2010)

The reason that folks with wheelchairs and other medical equipment that should be accommodated don't require ID is b/c it is pretty obvious what this equipment is being used for. When you park your car you need a placard or special plate b/c you are not present the whole time your car is parked there. Also, not all disabilities are immediately obvious to the observer. For example, someone with COPD or CHF (lung and heart diseases) may become short of breath easily if walking a distance, but it may not be apparent between the car and entrance of the building. 
I have worked in medical offices and am well aware of how able bodied people try to use medical excuses to get out of things. Even jury duty! 
In my experience I have seen 2 cases of people faking having a SD b/c they just wanted to take their dogs everywhere with them. 
What baffles me is why anyone with a disability wouldn't want to help insure that the system isn't abused by fakers? And I mean no offense, I am just confused by this! 
In your case Xeph if you had an ID maybe you wouldn't have been hassled at the restaurant at all. I don't know what your disability is, and you don't need to tell anyone here, but maybe it isn't obvious to others. Maybe that restaurant has had a problem in the past with people abusing your rights!
In a perfect world someone would be asked questions and tell the truth. You know this is not the case now. This is why official ID is needed in many settings.
Why not have a badge that attaches to the vest that doesn't need to be pulled out but is clearly visible, much like a placard? Why do you think you would be accused of having a fake ID? If I get pulled over by a PO I don't think-"wow what if he thinks this ID is fake?".


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> In your case Xeph if you had an ID maybe you wouldn't have been hassled at the restaurant at all.


Since they believed only blind people could use service dogs, no, it wouldn't have. And we told them EXACTLY what our dogs were for.



> Why do you think you would be accused of having a fake ID?


#1 Because training in these matters is *extremely lacking* #2 Because people are idiots #3 Because people are discriminatory

I especially think about it since my husband's job will have us moving every few years. So if I have an ID that's for VA and we move to CA and people there don't recognize the VA "license" as valid, and I'm required to leave a place of business, what am I supposed to do? Keep wandering around until I find a place that will let me in!?


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Yes Kris10 that is my point. No one is asking those with a disability to give up their right to their SD or be subjected to public scrutiny every time they walk in a building. License the dog and have the dog wear an ID. Think of all the money the private sector could generate training, certifying, and licensing dogs with some type of regulated standard for SD's? Since insurance companies pay for medical equipment it's not a far stretch to assume they would pay for reevaluations of the dog once the dog was certified as "medical equipment", and for those capable of training their own dog they could just use these training centers as places to license and evaluate their dog.

It wouldn't completely do away with fakers someone always slips through the cracks but it would lessen the gap. It would ensure all SD's were up to par, safe, and stifle discrimination for those who are disabled and need their use. It would also protect stores, airlines, and other public places from lawsuits should a fake SD slip through the cracks or should someone's dog have an animal moment and put the responsibility on the handler where it belongs


----------



## Kris10 (Aug 26, 2010)

Xeph you are saying that they thought that SDs were for blind people and didn't believe you---you illustrate my point! I said the need for official IDs is because someone may not take your word for it. And wouldn't that be better than telling some stranger what your disability is? That info is none of their business! 
Since federal law protects your rights the ID would have to be on that level. Like a passport for example.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I don't see how your husbands job and your moves should be able to affect the safety of others- I see your views as kinda selfish honestly. You are disabled not immortal. Just because it would be a pain for you doesn't mean you shouldn't be subjected to some sort of "inconvenience" when bringing your dog into a public situation. These are dogs of large stature who have and can bite and injure those around them. They are not an inanimate object like crutches or a wheelchair who pose no threat- dogs bite everyday though I have yet to hear about injury from wayward crutches

I have a disabled son but do not allow his disability to crowd common sense. He has restrictions and we work around those the best we can. In situations where we can't work around them we either leave, don't even go, or ensure we have the equipment and documentation we need to perform whatever task we're presented with. I don't expect special treatment for him other than educational accommodations and will never allow him to become the type of person who believes his struggles are any more or less than anyone else's. I carry documentation with me at all times because we don't drive. I have to have documentation to carry his nebulizer everywhere with us on the subway, bus, metro, and airlines each day of my life. They open my bag and use their bare dirty hands to touch my son's sterile equipment, wipe it down for various residues, and give it back. This adds 5-10 minutes to every trip I make, holds up lines, gets us plenty of dirty irritated looks, and is a hassle I am willing to make to ensure everyone else's safety around me since I ride public transit with unauthorized items. My son is not special he is different. His differences create a hassle, and we endure that hassle because it is fair!


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

Why does it even have to be a presented ID? What if it was just a government distributed badge that you sew onto a harness, or a special tag that can be identified by just looking at it? Then the handicapped person doesn't even need to be bothered by employees. It can still probably be replicated, but that's a lot better than any faker going in with any dog and just claiming it's a service dog. I mean, I've seen those 'service dog/medical alert dog/therapy dog' bandanas sold in regular pet stores :/.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> I said the need for official IDs is because someone may not take your word for it.


 If they didn't believe it when I told them (and another woman, that didn't know myself and my friend from Adam told them that SDs are MORE than guides) why would they believe it if I showed them an ID? They were absolutely ADAMANT that only blind people use SDs. An ID wouldn't change that.



> And wouldn't that be better than telling some stranger what your disability is?


I already don't have to do this, because it isn't any of their business. I can tell somebody what my dog is for without telling them what my disability is.



> Just because it would be a pain for you doesn't mean you shouldn't be subjected to some sort of "inconvenience" when bringing your dog into a public situation


And those that aren't disabled AREN'T being selfish by feeling those that have SDs should be the ones to move/leave in a place of business because THEY'RE being inconvenienced by the dog being there!?



> These are dogs of large stature who have and can bite and injure those around them.


Not all of them. Many smaller breeds are used as SDs as well.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

Xeph said:


> If they didn't believe it when I told them (and another woman, that didn't know myself and my friend from Adam told them that SDs are MORE than guides) why would they believe it if I showed them an ID? They were absolutely ADAMANT that only blind people use SDs. An ID wouldn't change that.


Because ID is worth a lot more than someone's word. ID probably would change that. Businesses would probably start training their employees to look for the verification of an authentic service dog. If you have no form of identification, what can you train the employees to do when it comes to service dogs? Nothing. And then you have a bunch of ignorant employees and an ignorant general public. If you have ID, then no one can doubt you. That's a lot better than your only verification being your word, especially when business have probably been lied to by fakers before and don't want to be held liable if your dog turns out to be an unstable faker that you just wanted to bring inside.

But if it was just a special harness, a tag, a badge, or something the dog wears that can be visually identified from a distance, that wouldn't be intrusive to people who use service dogs and it would probably prevent employees from doubting them. So would something like that still offend you?


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

Both my dog and her dog already wear vests (they have to for what they do). The dog's vest says "Service Dog" right on it.

That said, I'm done with this thread, as I'll never agree with needing to carry ID for my medical equipment everywhere.


----------



## Kris10 (Aug 26, 2010)

I'm sorry Xeph you said in your post you "told them exactly what your dog was for". -?? Doesn't that tell them what your disability is, or otherwise violate your privacy by telling them what the dog does for you?
Again you say you don't understand why an official ID would benefit. I could stand at the gate at an airport all day and argue that I am an an American citizen--but you know what will make them take my word for it? Ohhh a passport! An official document that no-one questioned the validity of when I traveled to Europe and back to the US this past summer. And the stakes are much, much higher when traveling by plane--and yet nobody questioned if my ID was fake or not. But a restaurant will?
A dog is not a piece of medical equipment. A wheelchair did not attack a women on a plane (to recall the original topic here). I think it is a shame that you get defensive when people suggest how your rights as a disabled person can be better protected. Otherwise cases like this one can end up restricting your rights if this person did not have adequate reason to have a dog in the passenger compartment.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Both my dog and her dog already wear vests (they have to for what they do). The dog's vest says "Service Dog" right on it.
> 
> That said, I'm done with this thread, as I'll never agree with needing to carry ID for my medical equipment everywhere.


I know you said you are done with this thread, but I just wanted to say that the only problem with that is that they sell 'Service Dog' vests in pet stores. If I was an employee in a store I wouldn't think anything about it, but when dogs are banned in many stores, something offered by the government would definitely help with people not believing you.

Dogs are not allowed in many public places, and for pretty much every other situation where something isn't allowed except in certain situations, you need to present some sort of legal documentation to be able to bypass those laws. I just don't think someone's word is good enough, and I think there's a lot of different ways the government could allow legit service dogs to be recognized without their owner having to suffer because of it.

I do agree that having to present ID pretty much everywhere you go isn't fair, but I also think the law is too open for abuse by not needing service dogs to have some sort of official identification on them.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Kris10 again my point I'm feeling a little less crazy. With no regulations and people being bitten and shown in the media your right's to your SD are in danger. Why not license the dog properly and cover all bases. Xeph I never said you should have to leave a store because a patron was inconvenienced. I said your excuse that licensing was a pain because you move a lot is ridiculous. I don't care how big or small the animal in question is it is an animal and capable of injuring others. I love to walk my dogs off leash, but in the company of others I ASK if this is okay out of respect because some people are afraid or allergic to them. If I needed an SD I would want that dog beyond trained for my safety as well as the safety of other's and licensed to PROTECT my right's. I think SD's are awesome and am always amazed by their composure when out in public- but obviously some people exploit this and accidents that harm others happen- why not be part of the solution?


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

who will pay for the licensing? who will do the licensing? what agency will cover it? Will it be under the Justice Dept? Will we have to start a new sub-dept that will cover the testing/licensing? Who decides what tasks will be necessary for each person?

Every person has different requirements, even if they have similar disabilities. 

How would you feel if, each time you walked out your front door, you had to show ID? Just the act of being in public was enough for you to be stopped? 

Another factor that would make IDs even more worthless than the current method of asking what tasks are performed. 1) most people wouldn't know a fake ID (drivers license for instance) if it bit them on the butt 2) badges are EXTREMELY easy to fake and IDs aren't much more difficult. I can get an ID declaring my daughter's guinea pig as my SD and it'll only cost a $1 and a stamp!

People fake to get handicapped tags as well. It's not very difficult to find a dr who will sign the forms for you. People already have drs fake notes saying that their dog is for "emotional support" and similar things so that they can have a dog without their landlords approval. I've even seen people mention it here as a possibility to make it easier to find a rental.

It's not a matter of needing more laws, it's educating people as to what the existing laws ARE.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

oh, and as to people being bitten? we have exactly ONE!! person who has been bitten. We don't have any of the story except what was cited by her lawyer in a civil suit, hardly an unbiased account. We don't have an epidemic of fake service dogs attacking people in the mall


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> I'm sorry Xeph you said in your post you "told them exactly what your dog was for"


My dog is a counterbalance and mobility dog. What is my disability?



> A dog is not a piece of medical equipment.


Under the ADA, a service dog is. People may not like that definition, but a service dog is legally considered medical equipment.

BTW, my biggest obstacle when out and about with my SD is NOT other SD teams (I have seen ONE other SD team in the almost 8 months I've lived here in VA). It's "normal" people that consistently interfere with my dog while he's working, from idiot adults just running up and hugging him (What the heck!?) to people's children chasing him screaming "PUPPY PUPPY PUPPY!" And he ignores it all.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Since they believed only blind people could use service dogs, no, it wouldn't have. And we told them EXACTLY what our dogs were for.
> #1 Because training in these matters is *extremely lacking* #2 Because people are idiots #3 Because people are discriminatory
> I especially think about it since my husband's job will have us moving every few years. So if I have an ID that's for VA and we move to CA and people there don't recognize the VA "license" as valid, and I'm required to leave a place of business, what am I supposed to do? Keep wandering around until I find a place that will let me in!?


 
Do you and/or your husband drive? 
Because you will probably (unless you are in the military, I think) have to get a driving license in your new state. Do you disagree with this too? Figure maybe that you shouldn't have to go through this terrible inconvinience.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

Dainerra said:


> who will pay for the licensing? who will do the licensing? what agency will cover it? Will it be under the Justice Dept? Will we have to start a new sub-dept that will cover the testing/licensing? Who decides what tasks will be necessary for each person?
> 
> Every person has different requirements, even if they have similar disabilities.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure who would do the licensing, prior to this thread I thought service dogs were licensed by government funded companies who trained service dogs(since they are medical necessities) and did have some sort of ID with them. 

I would see it being similar to money. Lets pretend that the identification is some sort of vest. With enough security features on it similar to money, it becomes difficult to replicate. And like money, employees are trained to spot fakes. Right now, there's no training whatsoever regarding service dogs in stores. Perhaps official ID would change that.

And lets face it, there wouldn't exactly be a huge, underground profitable market for getting a fake service dog ID.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Xeph said:


> My dog is a counterbalance and mobility dog. What is my disability?
> Under the ADA, a service dog is. People may not like that definition, but a service dog is legally considered medical equipment.
> .......It's "normal" people that consistently interfere with my dog while he's working, from idiot adults just running up and hugging him (What the heck!?) to people's children chasing him screaming "PUPPY PUPPY PUPPY!" And he ignores it all.


Not many people will really care what your disability is - if you have one, then you have one and have a SD that has to fit into the rest of society.

Person probably should have said that a legitimate SD is not JUST a piece of equipment. It is also a live animal. BTW, just out of curiosity, does the owner have to clean up after dog if he goes or does someone else have that responsibility?

Welcome to the real world when you are going in public with a GSD - same thing happens to a lot of us, and many folks get just as upset with folks coming up to their dog w/o permission - adults and kids. Worse for a real working dog of course - seeing eye or real police dog esp.

All the more reason for all of these dogs to be of immpecable temperament and able to handle this intrusion.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

there also isn't a reason to make a "un-copy-able" service dog ID. Will the government invest money in creating something that can't be duplicated if they don't think there will be a market for them? You can actually make a passable fake driver's license with less than $100 worth of equipment. A practiced forger can make one that would pass all but the most knowledgeable examination.
As for money, only the paper is" impossible" to fake. The watermarks and the printing itself are easy. Even a few years ago you could make counterfeit money with your home computer that would pass the notice of an inattentive store clerk.

As for the "equipment" vs "animal" argument, that is the legal definition of a service dog. The same as a police departments K9 is considered a piece of equipment. 

Also, there is actually no national requirement for training of police K9s either. Each dept/area makes their own rules.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

OK I'm coming back in. I will admit up front that I skipped lightly over the last few pages because they were too much for me to read, handle, and digest and in the length of time that it has taken me to write this post I am probably even one more page behind. 

Now back to SDs on a plane. First I don't know why some people still believe that a SD and handler MUST be seated in the bulkhead. It does not say that in the regs. At one time planes had more room in that area so people with SDs (remember when SDs where usually GSDs and Labs) and families with small children were usually placed there not because it was a regulation but because the airline wanted to see to the comfort of their passengers. But, the designs of a plane have changed and flights are not very comfortable for anyone. 

_OT here, have you flown on a plane recently and wondered why the windows are about impossible to see out of? That is because back when it was more important to be a comfortable mode of transport EACH ROW of seats had a window to look out of. The planes have been redone to fit extra rows in so now most windows open up to see a seat back. _

For those folks who want to really know, if you read the regulations there is buried in there a statement to the fact that a person with a SD can request bulkhead or a regular seat. This should be done at the time of making a reservation. I don't know how the SD handlers on this board make their reservations but ...

From advice given to me from others and via asking questions, when I made a reservation for a person traveling with their SD and SDIT:
* I went through the regular process of making the reservation
* I informed the person working with me that this individual would be flyiing with their SD and a SDIT. -- I then inquired what would be needed to fly the SDIT as a pet in the pet cargo.
* I requested to be able to escort the PWD not only through the security checkpoint but to be allowed to wait with them and their SD. On the same vein, I also requested permission for someone on the other side to be able to go through their security checkpoint and escort the PWD and SD from the plane.

I was asked what breed of dog the SD was -- this was in no way any violation but so the person helping me could indeed help me. It was determind which area of the plane would be most comfortable for traveling with a larger breed dog. 

I was asked if the SDIT had any documentation to show that it was indeed going through training and if the SDIT was traveling with the handler as a pet or if the trip was to further the training. This was not said in a nosy manner to infringe on anyone's rights but as a manner to be more helpful. I told the lady working with me that the SDIT was being transported to a trainer to help work on some needed tasks. I was asked to hold on for a minute. (And to me surprise it really was only about a minute.) She came back on and told me that if the PWD could supply *creditable documentation* that the dog traveling as a SDIT was a SDIT and if further documentation could be supplied from the other end that the dog was traveling to a trainer *then the fees of shipping a dog (pet) would be waived and while the SDIT could not travel in the cabin it would be flown free of charge. *

Now as to severe allergies. If the handler has informed the airline properly ahead of time that they would be flying with their SD then the airline makes a notation that there will be a SD in the cabin. I was informed - because I asked questions - that the SD would have a page attachment stating that it would be on the flight and and that the SDIT would have another page attachment stating that fees were waived and that it would be traveling in pet cargo. --- So with the notation re: SD in cabin for that flight anyone coming along behind and taking the time to mention that they had a severe allergy condition and could not be in close quarters with a dog or cat would have been told that the next available flight with no animals in the cabin would be ...... Remember that most airlines now allow either one or two small pets in carriers to fly in the cabin. How do they keep from booking in three if two is their limit - because it is noted on the flight info. So it would be to the benefit of anyone with a severe life- threatening allergy problem to make sure when making their reservation that they need a flight with no animals in the cabin. Would they be bumped if say a couple of hours later I tried to make reservations with a SD. No, I would be informed of the next available flight. 

PWDs and SDs are asked to board first so the handler can get the dog settled before the rest of the passengers come rushing through with the bumping of carry-ons. So ff someone boards a plane and sees a SD and they have an allergy or a great fear of dogs they can request being given a seat away from the dog. 

The ADA was never put into place to give special rights to PWDs but to help make their chances of living a MORE normal life possible. The people I deal with via the SD forum I am also a Mod on and my other contacts want to blend in and not bring attention or problems to the team. They don't want to be treated special but with understanding for their differences and to be treated with the respect that anyone else deserves just for the fact that they are human beings.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> BTW, just out of curiosity, does the owner have to clean up after dog if he goes or does someone else have that responsibility?


It is up to the handler to take care of this but a true SD would be trained to hold it until given the command to potty. The only time a true SD would have an accident in a building etc. would be a sudden onset of an illness. Even blind handlers are taught as part of their training at a facility how to clean up after their dogs. Handlers in wheelchairs also learn how to do this. It is part of being a reputable handler. 

*When taking a SD into the public a real handler of a real team will see to the total care of their dog. *


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> Also, there is actually no national requirement for training of police K9s either. Each dept/area makes their own rules.


Now you have probably shocked another whole set of people with that one. 




> All the more reason for all of these dogs to be of immpecable temperament and able to handle this intrusion.


YES, YES, YES ............


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

Yes I am shocked,lol What the heck is wrong with our government? They micromanage facets of our lives that need no interference and allow people to handle dogs in life or death situations with no real evidence of training. Freaking unbelievable


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> First I don't know why some people still believe that a SD and handler MUST be seated in the bulkhead.


I only stated that Strauss and I had to because he didn't fit anywhere else. He couldn't be in the aisle, nor could he sit on a seat. The planes we were on were also small, and not 747 type deals.

Interesting history on the planes


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

ILGHAUS - Thank you greatly for clearing up a bunch of stuff for me! Extremely enlightening!


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> Yes I am shocked,lol What the heck is wrong with our government? They micromanage facets of our lives that need no interference and allow people to handle dogs in life or death situations with no real evidence of training. Freaking unbelievable


That is why when I read about K-9s on this board I wonder if they were in fact trained to a minimum standard and certified through one of the national organization or if they were in-house trained by someone who "kind of sort of knew something about training a dog" and the person in charge of their K-9 unit just said yep, he is our new K-9. 

We have a couple of very knowledgable law enforcement K-9 trainers here on board who could explain about this system. I'm sure they cringe when seeing such a dog being called a K-9 for some agency when they know in fact how a real K-9 should behave and have been trained -- and which dogs should have been washed out on day #1.


----------



## Kris10 (Aug 26, 2010)

Seriously do not say that you can find a Dr to sign off on a form to get a handicapped placard routinely. Most will not put their license on the line so you can get a good parking spot and get pretty annoyed if someone who doesn't need this asks for one!

Why on earth would someone violate the law to get their dog into a restaurant, or Target store by forging an official ID? That doesn't make sense! You think their would be a market for fake SD IDs? Why not question everyone's driver's license? 

There is a lot of interesting info here-and I ask if anyone here knows specifically what diagnoses or disabilities qualifies someone for a SD, as opposed to other medical equipment such as a cane, walker, etc? Who decides who qualifies to begin with? If there is no official license for this who can say?


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> prior to this thread I thought service dogs were licensed by government funded companies who trained service dogs(since they are medical necessities)


I don't actually know of any "government funded companies" who train Service Dogs. AFAIK all the companies and organizations that raise and train dogs are either corporations or non-profits, and even those who get a fair bit of funding from various sources still rely on donations.



> And lets face it, there wouldn't exactly be a huge, underground profitable market for getting a fake service dog ID.


I don't know ... there seems to be enough of a profitable market at the moment for fakers to buy Service Dog IDs, vests, and certificates from any of the very many companies out there who sell them. You send them a letter stating that you are disabled and that your dog is a Service Dog, along with a picture of your dog and a fair amount of money (usually anywhere from $40 and up) and they will send you back a laminated plastic ID card and certificate that says your dog is a Service Dog.

Google "register dog as service dog" to see many websites that do fake registration and many, many sites that discuss how you can get your dog "registered" so you can bring it in places where pets are not allowed.



> allow people to handle dogs in life or death situations with no real evidence of training.


Just because there is no national standard does not mean there is "no real evidence of training". Local departments that have working dog teams train, certify, and keep logs. Just like your local fire department trains and certifies. Or you local rescue squad - most EMTs, for example, are licensed in their state, NOT nationally, and licensing requirements do vary between states.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> ILGHAUS - Thank you greatly for clearing up a bunch of stuff for me! Extremely enlightening!


You are more than welcome though I must admit I only know the tip of the iceberg on the legal side as it would take years and years to really get into it. And even the real experts clash from time to time as in any matter of reading a law. 

One of my goals is to work with people to know what is the minimum they need to expect from any dog they call a SD and also to help educate business owners and management what their rights are. I don't like or approve of people who try to use a pity card in life nor do I like when someone is denied a true right to help them. 

I don't think a person should use a SD in public if they are not able to steward their SD. That includes the proper care of and handling of their dog. That also includes knowing when a SD is no longer suitable and needs to be retired.

I don't like the idea of a SD team being required to have ID to show but I see because of the fakers and the number of dogs being taken into the public that should not even be done so on a pet status that a change in the law is coming. 

I have seen shop keepers who should have thrown a so called SD out of their place of business but they are scared to do so because of a possible legal action. That is a real shame. 

SDs do not have a free pass on local laws such as pottying without being cleaned up after or if there are leash laws they must also be on a leash. My county does have in its code that a working dog may be off leash only when performing a task that requires it to be so and only for that period of time. Example would be a K-9 during the time it was needed to do a building search or during a chase or a SD if a task was needed such as going for assistance of their distressed handler ie handler in a coma or falling out of their wheelchair and no one around to give any needed help.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> Why on earth would someone violate the law to get their dog into a restaurant, or Target store by forging an official ID?


They do it because they can. Some want to bring their dog with them because their dog has separation anxiety when left home alone. Some would like to think of themselves as celebrities who can carry their purse dogs anywhere they choose, just like Paris Hilton. Some just want their dogs with them all the time.

And a surprising number of people get their doctor (or dentist!) to sign off on a prescription for a fake Service Dog, often without even understanding what makes a Service Dog. Google "prescription Service Dog" for plenty of accounts from people who have a doctor's prescription for a dog and are relaying their experiences to others or recommending it.



> You think their would be a market for fake SD IDs?


There is. Service Dog Central has a nice list of some of the businesses that make fake Service Dog IDs - Service Dog Certification -- Spotting Fake Certification/Registration/ID | Service Dog Central


----------



## Kris10 (Aug 26, 2010)

Yikes! I meant to say who would violate a federal law to get into a restaurant, etc. What agency stamp is on these current IDs?

Any dr or dentist who would do such must be desperate for business and not one I would ever go to! Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode about a dentist doing something like that?


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Off topic, but as for being carded, I was carded for Nyquil once. 

I was at the mall for an interview at a store, and someone walked by the store with a seeing eye dog. How do I know? The dog had the seeing eye dog harness. But how do I know for sure that the dog was indeed a SD for the blind?I don't know. I am just assuming and hoping that he was a legit service dog.

I want to train Tanner to be a Therapy dog, so I can take him to see terminally ill children and the elderly and share his love. I can't take him to the place where my Grandpa is currently residing because they only allow little dogs. Well anywho, usually when visiting places like hospitals and homes fro the elderly, the organization goes as a group. But if I go alone, how would the people at the hospital know my dog is therapy dog? They won't.

I think some form of identification should be used for SD in the case of practically anyone can get a SD vest. I have to prove I need my medication for my Psoriasis when I travel on a plane(Its a needle with medicine.)I basically have a paper with my doctors signature, and a number to call, and my name.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

AbbyK9 said:


> There is. Service Dog Central has a nice list of some of the businesses that make fake Service Dog IDs - Service Dog Certification -- Spotting Fake Certification/Registration/ID | Service Dog Central


I'm confused. I thought service dogs didn't need ID's. Why would someone make a fake service dog ID when you don't need a real one?:crazy:


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> I'm confused. I thought service dogs didn't need ID's. Why would someone make a fake service dog ID when you don't need a real one?


Because there a good many people including many people in this thread that don't know an ID is not required. So flash the fake ID and in you go. So when a real SD team through the employee who now thinks all SDs have IDs will tell the team - "No ID, you can not enter".

Now there are real IDs but again they are not required by Fed. law. Any real agency training facility will issue some type of certification to their graduates. They usually give the handler an ID card also stating the dog is from such a such facility. Some agencies also supply vests and/or harnesses to their new teams. So just because someone has an ID or some certification document does not mean it is fake.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> Why would someone make a fake service dog ID when you don't need a real one?:crazy:


Because as so many of you have stated, people are more believable when they have an ID.

One of the reasons my other SD friend suggested I not carry one is because then people think ALL SD handlers need to have one, and this is not true.

ETA: TJ and I responded at the same time.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

When I was carded for Nyquil at Target they slid the ID through machine thats attached to the cash register and it was able to scan the ID to show if it was fake or not.

Don't know if they have hand held ones for clubs and things like that.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Many times a team is judged on its looks. If you see a handler with a spotless dog walking in a heel next to them not paying any attention to any doggy distractions you see an impressive sight. Now, you see someone with a dirty dog pulling toward people with food in their hands or a dog lagging behind the owner what do you think?

It is not always so clear cut but surprisingly there are many times that it is. I've seen a *_team*_ with the handler yelling, "sit, sit, I said sit" to their dog or a *_SD_* sniffing plates walking by a table in a food court. Hummm....if I was in charge I would certainly have my doubts on this team and would be keeping an eye on them. Heck, even as a customer I would have my doubts on this team. I have more than once told workers in a store that they have a right to ask the team to leave as the dog is not behaving as a SD.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> What agency stamp is on these current IDs?


None. Service Dogs do not have a government agency they fall under or certify through.



> I'm confused. I thought service dogs didn't need ID's. Why would someone make a fake service dog ID when you don't need a real one?:crazy:


Because it's so much easier to bring your real (or fake) SD places when you whip out a spiffy laminated ID card. And because so many places don't train their staff on Service Dogs because they do not commonly encounter them, so you can show them anything that looks official, and they will let you in. 



> But if I go alone, how would the people at the hospital know my dog is therapy dog? They won't.


First, a Therapy Dog is completely different from a Service Dog.

Second, if that particular hospital facility has a Therapy Dog program, they will have certain rules and guidelines for the program - you would only be able to visit on certain days/times, you'd probably need to report to the nurse's station before beginning your visit, and you would probably need to be clearly identified as a hospital volunteer and/or volunteer from your Therapy Dog organization (T-shirt and/or badge on you, bandana or vest on the dog).

Just because your dog is certified as a Therapy Dog doesn't mean you can walk into any hospital, medical facility, or old folks' home as you please and visit.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

which you can probably buy at any pet store.

My main point(even thought totally different things.) How will people know your dog is a SD? Because I said so. Not a valid answer, anyone can say that.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

I do have to ask...what pet stores sell these vests everybody's mentioning?



> Not a valid answer, anyone can say that.


And as mentioned previously, they can also ask what the dog is trained to do to mitigate the handler's disability.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

And anyone can say what the dog is used for. Anyone can make up an answer.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> And anyone can say what the dog is used for. Anyone can make up an answer.


Yup, they can. But certain answers are unacceptable. In addition to that, the majority of fakers do not HAVE an answer.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Still I see no reason not to have some form of identification.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> And anyone can say what the dog is used for. Anyone can make up an answer.


And if you feel comfortable in violating a Federal law or (State law with possible fines or jail time or in some states a possible loss of future benefits ) then you can so answer. Yes, there are fakers who are caught but not nearly enough as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> Still I see no reason not to have some form of identification.


Of course you don't, because you're not a person with an SD


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> Still I see no reason not to have some form of identification.


Well what you see or do not see is not really the point but what the law states is the point. Anything else is just people tossing out thoughts and opinions which is fine but remember your thoughts and opinions carry no legal weight. If you feel strongly enough about the matter or any other than voice that opinion through the proper channels and work on changing the law.

We must all pick our causes and what we want to spend our time on. Yours may someday be working on changing SD laws.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Of course you don't, because you're not a person with an SD


No thats not the reason why. Many have mentioned it in this thread. I know people with SD and also think there should be some sort of identification(My mom's friend's daughter is part of a program that trains SD and is for proof of ID). Its not discrimination, its only showing proof that your dog is a SD. If I had SD then I would want some sort of identification after going through the training. Even with licensing and certifications there will always be frauds, but having that will just help with people's reassurance.

There is a reason for licensing, not just driving. There are licensing for different careers to prove they are certified and were trained for a job such as a doctor, dermatologist, dentist, dental hygienist. I am not going to believe someone is what they are without some sort of proof. I am not just going to take their word for it. When I go to get my nails or hair done, the hair stylists and manicurists have to have their license out at their station to show the customers are a trained and certified hair stylist or manicurist. Same with when I was my orthodontists, and their assistants. At each of the stations they had a paper that was signed, stamped, name of the place they were certified that showed they were trained and knew what they were doing. My dermatologist has a paper in his office that shows proof that he is indeed a dermatologist and was trained and certified.

I am not going to let just anyone deal with my health, teeth, my skin problems or anything else that I need a professional to take care of.


----------



## Mac's Mom (Jun 7, 2010)

I think about all of the people who are fearful of Mac. And, some of those people may assume service dogs are safe. Scary to know...that might not be true.


----------



## JessWelsch (Oct 2, 2010)

"Because there a good many people including many people in this thread that don't know an ID is not required. So flash the fake ID and in you go. So when a real SD team through the employee who now thinks all SDs have IDs will tell the team - "No ID, you can not enter"." 


Our trainer told us to carry the ADA law with us at all times; we lamenated it and put it on both of our key rings. Jordan has an "in training" id.... it has her photo and says her name and my name. It says on the back that I am showing this id VOLUNTARILY and it is NOT required by the law. It also states the ADA law on the back and has phone numbers for the staff to call to triple check on the laws so if I dont know an answer they can call and get it first hand.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> I am not going to believe someone is what they are without some sort of proof.


Watch out for a lot of dog trainers then, because as noted, there's no national certification for them either.

Heck, my kennel club back home in WI is run on nothing but volunteers, and none that I know of are dog trainers for a living.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Watch out for a lot of dog trainers then, because as noted, there's no national certification for them either.
> 
> Heck, my kennel club back home in WI is run on nothing but volunteers, and none that I know of are dog trainers for a living.


Thats why I train my own dogs, and I ask behaviorists or other owners(they may not be certified, but I would ask number of owners to get an overall idea.), or vets.


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

JessWelsch said:


> "Because there a good many people including many people in this thread that don't know an ID is not required. So flash the fake ID and in you go. So when a real SD team through the employee who now thinks all SDs have IDs will tell the team - "No ID, you can not enter"."
> 
> 
> *Our trainer told us to carry the ADA law with us at all times; we lamenated it and put it on both of our key rings. Jordan has an "in training" id.... it has her photo and says her name and my name. It says on the back that I am showing this id VOLUNTARILY and it is NOT required by the law. It also states the ADA law on the back and has phone numbers for the staff to call to triple check on the laws so if I dont know an answer they can call and get it first hand.*


Thats good enough for me. And usually most people just want a number to call and the name of an organization.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I would think if you are willing to laminate and display the ADA's rules and regulations you would be just as willing to license your dog and display their ID on their vest to avoid complications. Like I have said over and over I am the mother of a disabled son and I have to carry proof for his medical equipment when taking any form of public transit. It's the law and something I have become accustom to. His teachers who teach him all have to have special certifications legally to work with him, and my son must be reevaluated each year for continued services. Again these are laws to ensure quality and need and something I am thankful for.

People scam the system all the time for prescription drugs, free money/resources from the state, and disability to avoid work. I know it's a fine line between discriminating and safeguarding systems in place, but I still don't see how licensing and having your dogs evaluated every few years as well as carrying or attaching a valid ID to the dog is any more intrusive than what I go through with my disabled son. On a side note I found out I have Lupus 2 weeks ago and was handed information on filing for disability with my nifty packet on my disease. It was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen

I am not disabled and would not exploit services that should be going to those that are- but people do and regulating these services while not a cure is a step in the right direction


----------



## JessWelsch (Oct 2, 2010)

I didnt say I wouldnt certify her IF that was available to me. I said in an earlier post that that would take a Lot of time... if we are talking about certification through the ADA... I just said I dont want to have to present ID each time I enter a building. I already present her "in training" id on her vest (which we purchased offline). 

If it was incorporated in her training (so no extra fees for me) thats fine. I dont take disability but I dont work either. I dont take it because I dont need it right now. Lamenating the law cost me about 2 bucks literally ...I dont know of any certification that would cost that. It has nothing to with the fact that I feel discriminated against or that I worry she would fail a test; I dont have those concerns at all. My concerns with a law implemented like this is that I would worry we (Jordan and I) wouldnt have legal rights in public, since we are indeed a team and she helps me out daily, until that training/testing/certification was complete/available/affordable/etc. It is a viable concern in my position - the costs of owning dogs as pets is high if you do things properly and my husband and I manage just fine, I just couldnt imagine how much money it would cost for this special certification for her... and at the rate that SDs are retired (every 5 to 10 years) it could be very very expensive over a lifetime. 

I think I worded what I meant to say ORIGIONALLY wrong. Once again I wouldnt have a problem with it if it wasn't crazy expensive and assuming that it was basic obedience + whatever we have trained my SD to do for me (which is what makes her a SD by current law). 

Sorry for the confusion on my posts if there was any.


----------



## Zoeys mom (Jan 23, 2010)

I think insurance companies should have to pick up or at least cover a large percentage of this imposed training, licensing, and reevaluating. I also think owners should still have the right to train their own dog and then bring them in for certification. SD's are medical equipment and those who have in home medical equipment of the non teeth bearing kind get it paid for by insurance in whole or at least at significantly reduced cost. My son gets new masks, tubing, and filters for his nebulizer once a year, repairs on the machine, and a new machine every three years. We pay a $20 copay for this service and it is delivered to our home

Making licensing and training required could also be a chance for the private sector to expand regulated of course by our government, creating jobs, and providing more outlets for those in need of SD's in the first place. Animals are big business as it is and privately owned places providing these services could of course diversify by offering regular training, grooming, obedience, agility, food/toy/supply sales, etc.... I think there would be a demand to sustain my idea but also person's with a disability would be better served by the rules that allow them these dogs in the first place.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Watch out for a lot of dog trainers then, because as noted, there's no national certification for them either.
> 
> Heck, my kennel club back home in WI is run on nothing but volunteers, and none that I know of are dog trainers for a living.


Plus there is no national driving license either, and also watch out for a financial advisor as well!


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> I think insurance companies should have to pick up or at least cover a large percentage of this imposed training, licensing, and reevaluating.


So are you saying that you are willing to pay higher insurance rates to cover someone's SD? Dogs from the Seeing Eye of NJ are valued at $40,000 or more. That is each dog. The cost to the new handler is max of $100. The rest is covered by donations of some sort. That $100. also covers the cost of travel for the new handler to attend a session of classes with their new dog, room & board, and follow up help for the life of the dog. 



> Animals are big business as it is and privately owned places providing these services could of course diversify by offering regular training, grooming, obedience, agility, food/toy/supply sales, etc....


Most SDs are provided by non-profit organizations via donations. It can take years learning to properly train a SD which themself take 18-24 months to train. So established schools such as the Seeing Eye in NJ should set up groomers and sell food etc? So maybe I'm missing your thoughts but how is the government going to set up all of these hundreds of new dog trainers. People start off as kennel assistants and then maybe are able to become an assistant of some type. It is mostly a one to one type training not something that can be set up in a classroom type situation. 

Many dogs don't last till graduation. At that point it is a start from scratch for a new dog. 

SDs themselves are not something that can be ordered ready made. They learn the basics but then have to be shaped to the needs of an individual. Some make it some don't. The dog, the trainer, and the new handler work together to mold the dog to fit the needs of the handler. Then there are some dogs that just don't pair up correctly with a handler. The dog and the handler have to meld into a working team. 



> but also person's with a disability would be better served by the rules that allow them these dogs in the first place.


Umm.... I'm lost here.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Just a little trivia to toss out there ...

Cut & Paste from the Seeing Eye Website

The Seeing Eye employs about 190 people at its Morristown campus. Jobs range from kennel workers to veterinarian technicians, and clerical staff to database specialists.

Quite frequently, people ask us, “How can I become a Seeing Eye instructor?” Staff instructors are full-time employees who hold college degrees from various fields of study and have successfully completed three years of specialized on-the-job training.They relate well to dogs and people and are physically fit, since their jobs are physically demanding and involve working outdoors in all weather. Some of our current instructors came from teaching, business consulting and rehabilitation fields. Some were in the military and worked with dogs before, and many started out as kennel assistants here at The Seeing Eye.


It was too late to edit my previous post but there is a major typo. The max cost to a handler from the Seeing Eye is not $100. but *$150.*


----------

