# Discussion on Owner Trainers



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

_It has been awhile since I've posted a question to start a round table discussion so here goes ...._


Currently in the U.S., there is no Federal Law against someone training their own Service Dog. Some states give individuals the right to train their own dogs while others are more restrictive. 

Do you believe that individuals should continue having this right or should all training be done by "professionals" or by training organizations? 

If you chose Professionals do you have any criteria you believe they should meet? Some criteria could include things like where the trainer received their training and under who? Did they have to take any tests and if so then who gave and evaluated the tests? Did they take any academic classes or classes given by instructors for professional instructors? 

If you chose Training Organizations should they be strictly accredited and if so by whom? 

Now remember these points - 
* The more limiting in who can train then the fewer Service Dogs are going to be available. Is this a good or bad limitation? 
* The more people and organizations involved at any level means costs go up. Again a possible limiting factor on the number of Service Dogs being used.


For those who would like to join in please remember to follow our rules. 

As always personal opinions are allowed but remember they are the opinion of the individual posting and should be read as such.

If giving a quote try to keep it relatively short, to the point that you are trying to make, and relative to the discussion. Be sure to give proper credit and post a link when giving a quote.


----------



## JeaneneR (Aug 22, 2012)

This is an issue that I've been on the fence with for years and I don't think I'll come to a good conclusion on it. 

On one hand I strongly appreciate and enjoy the rights given to me to train my own assistance dog. It allows me to tweak tasks and my dog's training to best suit my personal needs and the needs of my disabilities. It is very empowering for me to be able to 'help myself' in this way and is a large part of maintaining my health at an acceptable level. 

That said I don't think that the majority of PWD's are capable of training a dog to what I feel is an appropriate standard. It is very hard to be objective when you're independence and health will rely on your service dog and many people become blind to a dog's faults and don't wash them out when they really should. 

I feel that program trained dogs are often not well tailored to a individuals particular disability, that they are highly over priced in many cases and that there is a huge feeling of "Program trained dog = safe or better" which allows many programs to fly under the radar and put out dogs that are ill trained and often dangerous. 

The situation is little different when a PWD goes to a private trainer as the cost can quickly sky-rocket to the point where that person who is often of limited means can't afford a much needed aid for their own independence. 

I have met badly trained dogs that were owner trained but I have also met badly trained dogs that were program trained. I think the law needs work, but I don't agree that it needs to take away the right to train your own dog, with the assistance of an outside opinion and help of a professional trainer it is a very viable option if you are able to be organized and structured enough to do the training. 

I think there should be some higher standard of behavior set forth by the law and that service dogs should have to be certified... I'm not sure how this would work and who would over see it, or if it would become as difficult and paperwork heavy as Social Security currently is which wouldn't be conducive to a good system but something should be done to insure that dogs that are in public are not a safety hazard to themselves, their handlers, or the public.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

JeaneneR said:


> This is an issue that I've been on the fence with for years and I don't think I'll come to a good conclusion on it.
> 
> On one hand I strongly appreciate and enjoy the rights given to me to train my own assistance dog. It allows me to tweak tasks and my dog's training to best suit my personal needs and the needs of my disabilities. It is very empowering for me to be able to 'help myself' in this way and is a large part of maintaining my health at an acceptable level.
> 
> ...


 You hit on a lot of VERY valid points. I do not have time to write back about all of them but I will leave you with this for the time being.
http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/b-r-f-raw-feeding/201754-raw-service-dogs.html#post2727466

Please review my website as what I do in this regard (Tailoring to meet the needs of the individual) is what we pride ourselves on doing.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

Originally Posted by JeaneneR in RED
“On one hand I strongly appreciate and enjoy the rights given to me to train my own assistance dog. It allows me to tweak tasks and my dog's training to best suit my personal needs and the needs of my disabilities. It is very empowering for me to be able to 'help myself' in this way and is a large part of maintaining my health at an acceptable level.”
I love this statement and I appreciate and applaud you for it. But from what I gathered from a previous post, you really did not go it alone and you had professional help did you not? *NOTE the ADA does not cover service dogs in training. This is covered on a State level and varies by State to State. In some States ONLY Service Dog trainers attached to a recognized Service Dog facility may train their dogs in public. 
“That said I don't think that the majority of PWD's are capable of training a dog to what I feel is an appropriate standard. It is very hard to be objective when you're independence and health will rely on your service dog and many people become blind to a dog's faults and don't wash them out when they really should.” 
This is exactly why a good majority are not capable of training their own dog to be a service dog. Emotional influence combined with inexperience is a dangerous combination. With that said a good majority are capable under professional guidance and supervision. 2 of my clients are medical doctors and very bright people. But they will tell you that training dogs is not just a matter of intelligence it is a skillset that not everyone is suited for.
 I apprenticed under my father for 10 years before I trained my first dog on my own. Since then I have learned more and more from my own experience dealing with clients. As I speak with other professionals in the field, all of them will say the same thing. The dog is easy; it is the client that is the real challenge when it comes to these dogs training and performance maintenance. 
“I feel that program trained dogs are often not well tailored to a individuals particular disability, that they are highly over priced in many cases and that there is a huge feeling of "Program trained dog = safe or better" which allows many programs to fly under the radar and put out dogs that are ill trained and often dangerous.”
You hit the nail on the head with a lot of the program dogs. 99% use a cookie cutter method, and it is not suitable for the disabled person or the dog. ADI has an implied elitist sanction. This is the farthest thing from the truth as you are aware. They fly under the radar because they are shielded by politics, policy, and intimidation. Overpriced? That is debatable on multiple levels. The cost to the client should be fair depending on the financial position of the client. This would translate to paying 100% of the costs to just $25.00 of the cost. Ultimately if you are paying for a dog you should be guaranteed that you are getting what you paid for.
“The situation is little different when a PWD goes to a private trainer as the cost can quickly sky-rocket to the point where that person who is often of limited means can't afford a much needed aid for their own independence.”
Training your own dog professionally with a professional trainer can be expensive, no doubt but in the long run it is about half or less of what it would cost you if you paid for a fully trained dog on your own. Most do not pay for a fully trained dog all on their own anyway. Fundraising efforts reduce most of the costs for fully trained dogs. 
“I have met badly trained dogs that were owner trained but I have also met badly trained dogs that were program trained. I think the law needs work, but I don't agree that it needs to take away the right to train your own dog, with the assistance of an outside opinion and help of a professional trainer it is a very viable option if you are able to be organized and structured enough to do the training.”
Under the guidance of a professional I agree. I also feel more accountability needs to be incorporated in the law when it comes to service dog training and giving service dog training advice.
“I think there should be some higher standard of behavior set forth by the law and that service dogs should have to be certified... I'm not sure how this would work and who would oversee it, or if it would become as difficult and paperwork heavy as Social Security currently is which wouldn't be conducive to a good system but something should be done to insure that dogs that are in public are not a safety hazard to themselves, their handlers, or the public.”
Way ahead of you. This was discussed years ago and an alternative to ADI as they are too limiting without accountability for the schools they sanction. It is for this reason the SDS Project was formed.
http://sdschools.org/index.php/about-us/


----------



## MichaelE (Dec 15, 2012)

I don't think we need to involve the Government in the training of dogs or any other animal.

We have enough Government in our lives and wallets as it is.

Don't give them any ideas. Especially ideas for a new tax.


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

I agree with Michael that the government is not the way to go. Outside testing would be nice, but it adds to the burden of the PWD both physically and financially to have to either travel to be tested or to pay to have the tester come to them. I would rather err on the side of making sure that the PWDs have the most freedoms possible.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

Andaka said:


> I agree with Michael that the government is not the way to go. Outside testing would be nice, but it adds to the burden of the PWD both physically and financially to have to either travel to be tested or to pay to have the tester come to them. I would rather err on the side of making sure that the PWDs have the most freedoms possible.


 This is a doubble edge sword. Sometimes you can't have it both ways. You want to go left but you still want the benifits of going right. It makes no sense. This topic has been batted around for years now. The problem is not getting better it is getting worse. Do you have a better solution to the problems?


----------



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

ILGHAUS said:


> Do you believe that individuals should continue having this right or should all training be done by "professionals" or by training organizations?


I believe that people should be allowed to train their own Service Dogs.

BUT, I firmly believe that a Service Dog should be CERTIFIED before it can be allowed to be called a Service Dog (and have the privileges that come with that title).

I think a SD should, at the very minimum, be required to pass a CGC test. That shows the dogs knows basic obedience and the handler can control the dog in public. There are lots of CGC evaluators out there - no need for the government to get involved.


----------



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

SFGSSD said:


> You hit on a lot of VERY valid points. I do not have time to write back about all of them but I will leave you with this for the time being.
> http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/b-r-f-raw-feeding/201754-raw-service-dogs.html#post2727466


What does that thread have to do with this conversation??


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

Lauri & The Gang said:


> I believe that people should be allowed to train their own Service Dogs.
> 
> BUT, I firmly believe that a Service Dog should be CERTIFIED before it can be allowed to be called a Service Dog (and have the privileges that come with that title).
> 
> I think a SD should, at the very minimum, be required to pass a CGC test. That shows the dogs knows basic obedience and the handler can control the dog in public. There are lots of CGC evaluators out there - no need for the government to get involved.


Service Dog Certification involves a lot more than just a CGC it also involves a PAT and task certification to certify the dog on all accounts. A CGC is great for Therapy Dogs but a Service Dog requires a lot more than that. I am glad you agree that certification should be mandatory as it will help fix a lot of the problems. The question is who is going to police it? ADI has proven to not be reliable with their sanction SDS is not ready to launch yet… Either way the government should back one certification process if they don’t anything else but help enforce it.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

Lauri & The Gang said:


> What does that thread have to do with this conversation??


This post: I am on the fence with this policy in general. I do not retain ownership of the dogs that are certified through SFGSSD. Although I do not retain ownership of the dog I do have the right to not recertify any dog that no longer meets acceptable tolerances in accordance with the guidelines of this company. We do check up on our clients quarterly throughout the year and re-test for certification on an annual basis. We also encourage our clients to contact us immediately if any performance issues surface so we can address and correct them in a timely manner. If the client chooses to not heed our advice and the dog fails recertification as a result, it is the client’s responsibility to bring the dog to acceptable levels of performance for certification by SFGSSD. In either case we do not use the threat of taking the dog away from them. I feel that is to emotionally tolling on the client. 

However, there are organizations that use this (*Leased* we will take the dog if you don't do what we say) clause as leverage to mask their own negligence. That is what I have a major problem with in regards to this policy. If the client is being negligent... well... I can see why this can be viewed as acceptable policy. But I do feel "taking the dog away" in most situations is to emotionally tolling on the disabled handler. This is why we will not take the dog but we will not recertify the dog if they (The handler) are the ones that messed the dog up and refuse to comply with our program guidelines. *NOTE Certification is NOT a requirement of Federal law to legally be considered a Service Dog in accordance with the ADA. I do feel that a certification process backed by the Federal Government is in order to clean up a lot of the questionable mess that goes on in regards to Service Dogs. The suggestion of a Federal (License/Certification) is met with a lot of resistance from the owner trainer crowd even with some Service Dog organizations. I guess if I had or was producing questionable Service Dogs I would not want to be accountable either.:laugh:

half of this post relates to some of the concerns posted by JeaneneR


----------



## JeaneneR (Aug 22, 2012)

I can't see government certification with rose colored glasses though, it is a system that I can very easily see being abused by the government. There are a lot of problems no matter what way you look at it... most notably funding and paperwork... who's going to fund the whole project, and more importantly how is it going to change things? 

I can say with some certainty that even if you had a government ran certification system with an ID that it wouldn't work, business's don't even know the laws and their rights and responsibilities as pertaining to service dogs as it is. States that require ID's often the business's don't even know what the ID should look like, let along know how to answer it... 

Not to mention the drama involved with having to keep the ID on hand and show it everywhere you went... Can you imagine as a non disabled person having to show your driver's license every time you went out to get groceries?

I think something needs to be done... but I think the policing needs to be done internally in the service dog community... and for programs, and trainers to get on the same page as to what is required for a properly trained service dog. 

As for getting professional help with training my own dogs. Yes but not with the training but with the evaluation. I do that for my own piece of mind, and for the same reason that I compete with my dogs. Because without having an impartial audience it's impossible to remain completely realistic on where your dog needs work. That's why when I look for a puppy I look for a breeder who Works their breeding stock. I don't want to just hear that they have nice stock that works, I want to see titles on paper and in more than one venue. That's why I compete in several different sports with my service dogs as health allows because I feel that by competing I set the bar higher on the standards of behavior that I expect from my dogs. Add to that the added benefit that it is often fun for the dog and a way for them to let off steam.

Until my physical health became a problem I trained dogs for other's and still do offer advice and evaluations as needed but I find that it's a different line to walk than it is being a service dog handler. Regardless how much we want to be like everyone else and live our life we are very much in the public eye. People are going to be rude, they're going to be curious, they're going to want to touch and feel and push. You have to get used to being on display like an act at the circus... It's impossible to understand how important that bond is between the handler and the dog unless you're living it. 

I know a number of very good handlers, and I know a handful of really stupid handlers. 

I think the first step to fixing the perceived problem is education, education of the public, of business's and of the service dog community. Because without education no Other policies that are put in place are going to help.


----------



## NewbieShepherdGirl (Jan 7, 2011)

I believe it should be up to the states because the more the federal government is involved less power the individual has, which consequently means the less help the individual is being given as people who are more distanced for the situation and the implications of their decision are being given the most power. The more localized the power the better off the people are.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

JeaneneR OMG I am having a flashback:laugh: I recall this same discussion 3 years ago and the same positions and suggestions on "How to move forward to help fix it" were said then. I also cautioned to watch out for ADI as what they will try to do with the military will cut out SD programs that do not agree with their accreditation unjustifiably and they will try to corner a market that should not be cornered because of the demand and supply at this time. I personally know great trainers that are no longer part of ADI because they do not believe in there madness from a training and political standpoint. :smirk:

When this notion was suggested I was viewed as being paranoid and not giving ADI the benefit of the doubt as Bla Bla Bla... 3 years later this happens. NO Service Dogs that are not from an ADI accredited org are allowed on VA property. Yes I was paranoid indeed:laugh:

"So how did this happen? Assistance Dogs International (ADI) lobbied a few elected officials and had discussions with the United States Army and the Department of Veterans Affairs offered to manage Service Dog training programs on the national level for all Veterans facilities including Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facilities. What ADI proposed is standards of operation and training service animals with the same level of expertise and training standards throughout the training community. While the ADA does not require certifications for service animals let’s make sure the agencies providing service animals to Disabled Veterans. On paper this is appears to be a great program and is my personal point of view although let’s look at the how ADI is set up and how it hurts an estimated 85% of all Disabled American Veterans with Service Animals. ADI is an organization that certifies only the other organizations, like a club. You pay your dues and you get in.

I reached out to ADI after hearing about "The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Bill" being submitted for the President Obama signature. I actually received a phone call back from Ms Suzi Hall who’s official position is the ADI Coordinator. I personally spoke with Ms Hall and she admitted she did not know all the details of HR 1627 and she promised Mr Hudson would contact me. Mr. Hudson was supposed to call me back because I had many concerns about the ADI Process and which service dogs are actually acceptable to be accredited by ADI if the service animal is To this day (a week later) I still have not heard from either party and now Ms Halls email has been disabled and phone calls are not being returned."

http://www.windchyme.com/Blog/2012/08/07/va-trying-to-ban-owner-trained-service-dogs/

Then there is this

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/09/05/2012-21784/service-dogs

and this

http://www.change.org/petitions/new-va-standards-of-care-and-how-it-hurts-the-disabled-american-veteran



I guess it is safe to say it depends on "WHO" is "Educating". Fair?



When it comes to Service Dogs IMO this needs to be the priority.



1. Certification that actually does guarantee performance within acceptable tolerance (not just falsely implies that it does) as we all know that there are a good number of active service dogs from ADI accredited facilities that could not pass a CGC never mind the PAT that is a requirement of ADI.

2. The needs of a person with a legitimate disability as defined by the ADA are met in regards to a Service Dog to mitigate said disability/s

3. The safety of the PWD as well as the general public in regards to Service Dogs.

THEN you can "Educate" as you have something more solid to back up what you are educating people about. SD, TD, EMA, Real SD, Fake SD, Certified, not Certified, you don't need certification, you don’t need a vest to identify, you should identify... The contradiction and confusion goes on and on and on. 

When measures need to be taken to get some kind of handle on this and you have an org that sees $$$$ first, you’re asking for it. I personally am not blaming the DOD or the government for what happened with ADI and the Veterans. I BLAME ADI. But I was just paranoid 3 years ago and this would not happen with "education".

SDS is a non-profit organization that will offer an alternative to ADI accreditation. The priorities of SDS is as stated above. The mission:

http://www.servicedogschools.org/


----------



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

SFGSSD said:


> Service Dog Certification involves a lot more than just a CGC it also involves a PAT and task certification to certify the dog on all accounts.


Other than the food part, the PAT test is almost the same as the CGC:



> The Public Access Test evaluates the dog's obedience and manners and the handler's skills in a variety of situations which include:
> A. The handler's abilities to: ( 1 ) safely load and unload the dog from a vehicle; ( 2 ) enter a public place without losing control of the dog; ( 3 ) to recover the leash if accidently dropped, and ( 4 ) to cope calmly with an access problem if an employee or customer questions the individual’s right to bring a dog into that establishment.
> B. The dog's ability to: ( 1 ) safely cross a parking lot, halt for traffic, and ignore distractions; ( 2 ) heel through narrow aisles; ( 3 ) hold a Sit-Stay when a shopping cart passes by or when a person stops to chat and pets the dog; (4 ) hold a Down Stay when a child approaches and briefly pets the dog; ( 5 ) hold a Sit Stay when someone drops food on the floor; hold a Down Stay when someone sets a plate of food on the floor within 18" of the dog, then removes it a minute later. [the handler may say “Leave It” to help the dog resist the temptation.] ( 6 ) remain calm if someone else holds the leash while the handler moves 20 ft. away; ( 7 ) remain calm while another dog passes within 6 ft. of the team during the test. This can occur in a parking lot or store. Alternatively, you could arrange for a neighbor with a pet dog to stroll past your residence while you load your dog into a vehicle at the beginning of the test.



And as I said it would be the *MINIMUM *I would say a SD needs to have to be a SD.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

SFGSSD, You may want to take the info from your last post here and begin a new thread. 

Also some of the background info on this topic can be found in the sticky list at the top of the threads and are there for easy reference.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

When speaking of "a PAT test" or "the PAT test" a point to remember is there is no one official PAT Test. *PAT* just means a Public Access Test and can be designed by any dog trainer, evaluator, or organization. 

Some PAT tests are copyrighted and the copyright owner may specify who is allowed to administer it and for what reason. 

OTs, if you are taking a PAT test it is best to question the evaluator to know if it is their own test or if it is not then do they have permission to use it. *

Some PAT tests may take a half hour to give while I know of one that is given over the period of several days.

* This is most notable in the case where someone pays an individual to give a PAT test. It is very obvious when a copy of the test shows a printout with (c) of a particular individual and there is a notice that this particular test can only be given by approved evaluators.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I've always thought it was wrong that people are allowed to train their own dogs...but then you think more about it and not everyone has $20000 to pay for a fully trained dog. I found it weird that there isn't any kind of certification process...but then you think about it and how restrictive that would be.

Problem is the government can never do things the way YOU want them to be done. So ILGHAUS, SFGSSD, Lauri, JeaneneR, myself, and every other person with an opinion on this will have a different thought about how it should be done. Then there's the added cost, and sorry but I don't want the government wasting tax money on certifying trainers/dogs. There aren't enough issues in the United States currently with SDs attacking people or doing things that are so terrible that there is talk about getting rid of them.

Then if you think about a certification process...well I'm guessing there would be an official tag or vest they would give out, along with a license. All things not just easily counterfitted...but also hard to check for if they are fake. And what are stores/public places going to do? Start checking all dogs for registration numbers? Calling some sort of registry each time a dog walks into their store and delaying the PWD while they figure out if their dog is certified or not.

I know its silly but if you make the comparison to a driver's license...you can go your whole life without having one, and still drive a car. It's only an issue if you break the law and get caught. And this is kind of the system we have currently with SDs except without the license. But again, what would a license really add to that system?


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

ILGHAUS said:


> SFGSSD, You may want to take the info from your last post here and begin a new thread.
> 
> Also some of the background info on this topic can be found in the sticky list at the top of the threads and are there for easy reference.


Will do but what part? Thank you I will use it if it directly relates to what I am talking about.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

ILGHAUS said:


> When speaking of "a PAT test" or "the PAT test" a point to remember is there is no one official PAT Test. *PAT* just means a Public Access Test and can be designed by any dog trainer, evaluator, or organization.
> 
> Some PAT tests are copyrighted and the copyright owner may specify who is allowed to administer it and for what reason.
> 
> ...


:thumbup: Could not say it better myself

I have my own that is more in depth than the one from ADI. It is not 7 days long ... only a few hours but has a lot more intence situations the dog is put in and is expected to work through it all.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

martemchik said:


> I've always thought it was wrong that people are allowed to train their own dogs...but then you think more about it and not everyone has $20000 to pay for a fully trained dog. I found it weird that there isn't any kind of certification process...but then you think about it and how restrictive that would be.
> 
> Problem is the government can never do things the way YOU want them to be done. So ILGHAUS, SFGSSD, Lauri, JeaneneR, myself, and every other person with an opinion on this will have a different thought about how it should be done. Then there's the added cost, and sorry but I don't want the government wasting tax money on certifying trainers/dogs. There aren't enough issues in the United States currently with SDs attacking people or doing things that are so terrible that there is talk about getting rid of them.
> 
> ...


If something is not done soon it will get completely out of hand. When that happens, do you want the Government or people that have never trained a dog in there life taking over? Do you want ADI to take the bull by the horns? (We seen what happens when you go down that road). So, What do you suggest? More education without real accountability perhaps? Not picking on you... I just know that a solution must present itself before politics and BS take over.
The issues go beyond agression issues. Those issues dont make to many headlines but they are a heck of a lot more common.


----------



## JeaneneR (Aug 22, 2012)

The first thing that would help is to truly educate business's on 

What they can ask - 

Is this a service dog required because of your disability? 
What tasks/work it is it trained to do?

And When they can throw out a team. 

90% of business's have no clue as to their rights... Walmart is a good example. They're education program sucks... and All of their service dog is outdated and no longer in compliance with the new revisions to the ADA. I use them as an example because I know people who work for them and their policies. Currently the only people trained on service dog law are the managers and in some stores that still have them the door greeters... this is unacceptable, not only because it means legitimate teams are not handled correctly but because non legitimate teams are not stopped at the door. 

The vast majority of fakers either don't know any better because they see dogs in the store (often teams that were too lazy to properly vest their dog) or because they think they can get away with it because no one has challenged them. 

The other group of people who cause a problem, and I've seen a lot of these are the people who are the 'doctors note' waver's. Usually people who just don't know any better and have no clue that their dog actually needs to be trained. 

I don't like the idea of an ID and government certification for several reasons. One because it isn't going to help that business's aren't educated to begin with on what they would be able to ask for and what it would look like. Two any idea is going to be just as easy to fake as driver's license and less easy to catch a faker because the business won't be able to tell the difference. And three because it will give business's an extra thing to harass legitimate teams with. 

I would hazard to guess that the only people who know the laws are programs and legitimate teams.. which helps no one. Most of the time local law enforcement doesn't even know state and federal law. 

Will education stop the whole problem? No... but it's a start, and it's a better start than handing it over to people like ADI or even the government. My personal opinion is that it should start with schools, business's, and especially doctors who write notes out for service dogs without even knowing what a service dog is or what's required. 

In the mean time service dog handlers, trainers and programs need to get together as a community and come up with a solution. I know exactly how hard this will be... I've dealt with service dog support groups, forums, and even programs for years and there is always needless drama and no one ever can agree on a way to fix the problem.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

JeaneneR said:


> I would hazard to guess that the only people who know the laws are programs and legitimate teams.. which helps no one. Most of the time local law enforcement doesn't even know state and federal law.


Is this ever the truth! Not only are a good number of law enforcement officers blind to what the ADA says a Service Dog is, they are also not aware of laws specifically in there state that cover SD's and SD trainers. 



While educating people about SD's and PWD is a must, most still do not take what they know or learned seriously. How many times has anyone with a SD been out in public and someone said to you "I know I am not supposed to but..." Why do they continue to do it? How many cases are there when the law was actually enforced for the PWD and the media covered it? The owner trainer is challenged with all sorts confusion both from their dog not being from a program, clearly identified, and the law that surrounds what can and cannot be done in a owner trainer capacity. Besides education, what are some other suggestions?


----------



## JeaneneR (Aug 22, 2012)

Other suggestions? 

Some strict laws for faking a service dog and accurate coverage of court cases where people are caught faking. Even certification isn't going to help if there are no laws in place that lay out the punishments of actual faking. As it stands now there aren't any real reasons for people not to fake... what's the worst that's going to happen to most of them? They get asked to leave... 

I'll admit that we don't really have a huge problem with faking in my area, we do have a very minor problem with people who have doctors notes and their doctors don't know what a service dog is anymore than they are... but most of those are willing to be educated.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

JeaneneR said:


> Other suggestions?
> 
> Some strict laws for faking a service dog and accurate coverage of court cases where people are caught faking. Even certification isn't going to help if there are no laws in place that lay out the punishments of actual faking. As it stands now there aren't any real reasons for people not to fake... what's the worst that's going to happen to most of them? They get asked to leave...
> 
> I'll admit that we don't really have a huge problem with faking in my area, we do have a very minor problem with people who have doctors notes and their doctors don't know what a service dog is anymore than they are... but most of those are willing to be educated.


Now you are talking about the government getting involved, there is no way around that if you want tougher laws. Is there a way around that?
The law is a problem within itself. I see Service Dog registries get ridiculed for providing an ID and or vest to disabled people that owner trains there dog. To be fair I would say 2 of them that I know personally actually just want to make things easier on the disabled person when it comes to public access challenges. Do fakers take advantage of these registries and LIE to them to? Yes, do the 2 that I know of wish they could VERIFY that the person requesting a SD vest and/or ID is in fact disabled and qualifies for a SD under the ADA? YES! BUT, it is ILLEGAL for them to ask to verify this. So, let’s not forget that fakers (Even the “Undercover” people) that told these registries that they require this because of a disability committed PERGERY and are also impersonating a disabled person to gain benefits and privileges afforded to PWD. Do they also wish they could verify that the dog is actually TRAINED to acceptable levels of competency? YES, but again, “Certification” is not a requirement under law. So the United States Service Dog Registry is just trying to help while staying within the law. They did not do anything Illegal, the people that committed a crime to obtain their services did. Are there other ones that offer fake certification and take advantage of the unknowing Yes! But not all of them take advantage PWD’s they are just trying to help make life easier on the PWD. You cannot blame someone for not doing something if it is ILLEGAL to do so. You also cannot blame someone for someone else’s CRIME. 
Is a vest or ID required under law? NO, but let’s be honest here, If you think people checking ID’s and certifications is a hassle, go to a few places without a vest or anything identifying on your SD and see exactly how far you get without being challenged, again and again and again.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

SFGSSD said:


> Now you are talking about the government getting involved, there is no way around that if you want tougher laws. Is there a way around that?
> The law is a problem within itself. I see Service Dog registries get ridiculed for providing an ID and or vest to disabled people that owner trains there dog. To be fair I would say 2 of them that I know personally actually just want to make things easier on the disabled person when it comes to public access challenges. Do fakers take advantage of these registries and LIE to them to? Yes, do the 2 that I know of wish they could VERIFY that the person requesting a SD vest and/or ID is in fact disabled and qualifies for a SD under the ADA? YES! BUT, it is ILLEGAL for them to ask to verify this. So, let’s not forget that fakers (Even the “Undercover” people) that told these registries that they require this because of a disability committed PERGERY and are also impersonating a disabled person to gain benefits and privileges afforded to PWD. Do they also wish they could verify that the dog is actually TRAINED to acceptable levels of competency? YES, but again, “Certification” is not a requirement under law. So the United States Service Dog Registry is just trying to help while staying within the law. They did not do anything Illegal, the people that committed a crime to obtain their services did. Are there other ones that offer fake certification and take advantage of the unknowing Yes! But not all of them take advantage PWD’s they are just trying to help make life easier on the PWD. You cannot blame someone for not doing something if it is ILLEGAL to do so. You also cannot blame someone for someone else’s CRIME.
> Is a vest or ID required under law? NO, but let’s be honest here, If you think people checking ID’s and certifications is a hassle, go to a few places without a vest or anything identifying on your SD and see exactly how far you get without being challenged, again and again and again.


But again...a vest is easily made or ordered online. An ID can easily be made or ordered online. This doesn't have anything to do with service dogs but there is a dog beach in the Chicago area that charges people for use. If you live in the city that its in, the tag is like $50 for the year. If you live outside the city its like $300 for the year. I have friends that use that beach, they have friends that live in the city (with a dog), those people purchased a tag (just a purple bone dog tag), and then the other ones just ordered the same exact kind...font, color, size, I'm saying IDENTICAL, to that one online. So now they have like 5 or 6 of them that they give to their friends whenever someone wants to use the beach with them. There's a teenage park employee that sits at the gate to the beach and checks for the tags, so anyone with a purple tag just walks in (tags change colors yearly). Is it wrong? Yes! But who is going to spend $300 for their dog to use a 50 yard stretch of beach on lake michigan (which you can't even swim in half the time).

So no tag, certification, or anything will get over the fact that people just aren't educated in how to figure out who's real and who isn't. United States Service Dog Registry sounds sweet and official, but anyone that knows anything about the law would know that any kind of official registration or license would come from the STATE they live in and not a national registry. It's a start...but again, its meaningless since they can't break ADA either and its just as easy to lie to them and get your dog registered as it would be to strap on a vest and walk into Walmart without the registration.

Wanna make it easier? Wear sunglasses...I was at our state fair this year for a dog event with my dog. When I walked out into the actual fair with him, I got asked at least 10 times if he was my guide dog...and it didn't matter that I was clearly leading him the whole time.


----------



## SFGSSD (Dec 28, 2012)

martemchik said:


> So no tag, certification, or anything will get over the fact that people just aren't educated in how to figure out who's real and who isn't. United States Service Dog Registry sounds sweet and official, but anyone that knows anything about the law would know that any kind of official registration or license would come from the STATE they live in and not a national registry. It's a start...but again, its meaningless since they can't break ADA either and its just as easy to lie to them and get your dog registered as it would be to strap on a vest and walk into Walmart without the registration.


Police Officers wear a uniform, have a badge and ID (you can spot them a mile away if you are looking for them). If you have these things and are NOT a Police Officer you are guilty of impersonating a Police Officer and I believe that is a felony with jail time. Why can it not be as simple as that when it comes to a Service Dog? Why do you feel more education on the confusion is going to help? Where before it was just a guess... now it is an "Educated Guess"?:laugh: And that is better than real clarity to the general public?
Laws need to be enforced and stricter laws with tougher fines for illegal activity. Like that "Undercover" reporter serving jail time for impersonating a disabled person to gain privileges under the ADA. Yeah that person can go "Undercover" in jail all they want:laugh:


----------



## Hercules (Aug 1, 2010)

I personally am against having professionally trained dogs only because I have two service dogs that I trained myself and I would never even be able to have one because of the cost. Also if only professional trainers can train dogs then the cost will sky rocket and seeing as how they are too high for a lot of people as it is...

Also, just because a dog is professionally trained, it does't mean they behave better than owner trained dogs. I have had a few instances where i was in out with my one of my dogs and I had professionally trained dogs freaking out and barking and lunging at my dog while mine laid on the ground looking to me for direction.

While yes the ADA laws do get abused, if it becomes more strict, I fear people like me who can't afford to get a professionally trained dog would be SOL.


----------



## aelira (Feb 1, 2014)

I think the only real way to deal with the issue of fraudulent service dog teams is to make it clear to businesses that they don't have to tolerate inappropriate and/or disruptive behavior from a SD in their establishment. Not saying this would be easy because it would require a lot of educating on the part of legitimate teams or training programs. Dealing with the behavior of a badly trained dog and a handler that is just dragging it around with them is really the only way to go without the logistical nightmare of a government-run certification program. This coming from someone who isn't going to worry about a dog in public unless it is causing problems for myself or others.


----------



## kmbjbb (Dec 4, 2013)

I am coming in late to this. I am currently owner training with the assistance of a trainer.

We have the basics to work on at this time and also remedial socialization as my pup was never socialized. Plans are to get the remedial and the basics done, then move onto the 3 levels of Canine Life and Social Skills obedience training. After that, the plan is to do the CGC. I am not sure if my trainer has anything with a PAT or not, but I can pull up some and let her see. Otherwise, we will move onto task training. Mine will be a Hearing Assistance Dog.

As far as "uniform". While they are not required and GSDs can get warm if the temps are too hot, I suggest checking into specific state laws before making a decision. In my case, where I am now, there's no requirement (that I can see), but where we are moving to in a few years, at this time, does require Hearing Assistance Dogs, (Hearing Guide Dogs) to have orange on. Did not say it had to be a vest or what. I have a cape style vest to use and will also have bandannas. 

If people were to follow the law, and do the right thing, there should not be the problem with untrained owner trained SDs. It takes doing homework in finding the right trainer. Some charge very little and some charge more. Some will even do a barter system like mine. 

I don't mind certification, but only if it is accepting of owner trainers. Too many things I have seen proposed from various people and such are leaving out the OTers. Also, there are issues with the CGC. Not all OTers live close enough to certified examiners (is that the word I want). In one case, I know this person would have to travel more than 300 miles to one.

I am kind of new to all this, but I felt like chiming in.


----------



## kmbjbb (Dec 4, 2013)

One other thing I have done. With my previous dog (not a GSD) we had issues in my neighborhood and needless to say, dog had to be washed out. Same neighbors and issues created issues with my daughter's dog and he became aggressive and had to be put down.

The Town Hall is working with me on this. They already know and understand the need for me to have a service dog. I have provided them with links and copies of the ADA law, revised copy, the DOJ letter for businesses as well as a copy of the statute for my state regarding SDiTs (Service Dog in Training). We had a little meeting, and things were brought up at a Town Council meeting. Our quarterly newsletter that I recently got, had a 2 page spread (it's only a 4 page newsletter) on the laws and consequences for injuring them and all kinds of stuff. So far, with my new GSD, I have not had a problem. By request of the Town Council, I use only orange leashes and an orange bandanna (currently plain). The neighborhoods have been told about the possibility of a GSD wearing orange and to "leave it alone". We now have more police patrols and they have all met with Piper and love her. 6 officers of the County Sheriff's Dept live in my neighborhood. We are all working together and the 3 people responsible for my washed out puppy and been put on notice. The dog that keeps getting out will be put top sleep if he's out again (8 times in 1 year). He is in training to be an aggressive guard dog and will attack. HE is the reason my daughter is scared to go outside and why her dog had to be put down.

Sorry this turned out so long, but I mainly wanted to say, get involved with your neighborhoods and the local police. It will help greatly.


----------



## Cheyanna (Aug 18, 2012)

I am training Fiona with a professional trainer. Most organizations cannot or do not cross train dogs for people with multiple disabilities. I was told to pick which disability.

I am annoyed by fake service dogs, but I don't want government butting its nose in my disability business. Taking away the ability to self train would hurt PWD like me. Most organizations want you to fundraise to pay for the dog. The organization that accepted me gave me a year to raise $24,000. In 2 years, I have spent about $10,000 self training. The professional trainer takes payments every few weeks so no giant scary payments.

I do think a SD should pass basic obedience tests and not be a barking nuisance in public. Although some SD bark to alert the handler. Fiona seems to know when I am engrossed in something at work, she will bark to tell me "hey, someone is trying to talk to you."


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------

