# FL Adding Penalty for False Claims of SD?



## ILGHAUS

Looks like it may be happening ... 

FL may soon be joining the small group of states that have any penalties for those people falsely claiming their dog as a SD. It would be a 2nd Degree Misdemeanor.

HB 414 -- passed through the House with all Yeas in all committees ...

SB 414 -- The Service Dog Bill passed through Senate Fiscal Policy Committee yesterday unanimously. Only one more vote to go ....

This Bill if signed into law will make some needed changes and additions to FL Statute 413.08


----------



## Cheyanna

It is a felony in California. You can license your dog as a service animal.


----------



## middleofnowhere

Good news but with the reluctance to challenge a person claiming SD "rights" for their animal, is this going to be effective/useful?


----------



## SuperG

(9)
A person who knowingly and willfully misrepresents 
210
herself or himself, through conduc
t or verbal or written notice, 
211
as using a service animal and being qualified to use a service 
212
animal or as a trainer of a service animal commits a misdemeanor 
213
of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 
214
775.083, and must perform 30 hou
rs of community service for an 
215
organization that serves individuals with disabilities, or for 
216
another entity or organization at the discretion of the court, 
217
to be completed in not more than 6 months.


This sounds like more of the same old stuff....even though a store can ask what functions the service animal is trained for, cannot ask about the individual's condition for requiring a service animal...which is proper. I still believe the bottom line is..no documentation is required to be carried and produced to prove the service animal is legitimate. Until the individual is required to carry appropriate documentation and an individual representing the public accommodation is allowed to request such documentation....the game will continue. The laws and enforcement is a a tricky situation...making a legitimate owner of a service dog having to be scrutinized is not the goal...so as long as they leave this portion of the law vague or nonexistent regarding proper documentation....the abusers will still do as they have been doing.

SuperG


----------



## Anubis_Star

I think service dogs should legally be licensed through appropriate bodies and have a displayed license. It sucks that legitimate owners/handlers need to be scrutinized, but it's because so many abuse the system.


----------



## Rachel8465

I wonder if this is really being offered in response to property owners with tenants who claim they have a service animal for support? That's a complaint I've heard from some Section 8 property owners here in Tallahassee. From what I understand, property owners may not allow pets, particularly large dogs, but they have to under the law if its a service animal. And sometimes people aren't honest about these pets ... making it a crime may discourage that.


----------



## Anubis_Star

But it already is a crime to falsely represent your animal as and service animal. Problem is no way to enforce it


----------



## ILGHAUS

Anubis_Star said:


> But it already is a crime to falsely represent your animal as and service animal. Problem is no way to enforce it


And that is why some of the states are adding this to their statutes. Unless it is in violation of the individual state's law the local law enforcement have no jurisdiction. 

The DOJ has said that the ADA is a law to give rights to people (Civil Rights Law - Federal) and not a law to punish any individuals. Under Fed. law there is very little bite and on the whole very little in the way of warning growls.

FL is not making the false claiming punishable by jail time. Instead they are going to make any offenders forced to do some type of community service such as claim your dog is a SD when it is not (or the handler is not even disabled) then your sentence may be going to the local animal control shelter and clean kennel runs for 60 hrs. I think it is a win all around.


----------



## SuperG

I believe the legislation provides for this " punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s 775.083,and must perform *30* hours of community service for an organization that serves individuals with disabilities, or for another entity or organization at the discretion of the court,to be completed in not more than 6 months." per my previous post. This excerpt is from the bill you cited earlier.

SuperG


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

What SuperG said. 

I got in all kinds of hot water when I suggested that SD handlers have some sort of I.D. and use consistently marked/colored equipment on their dogs. The poster even recruited a man from a FB group to come on here and try to throw his weight around as a former military person. All because I said having a working SD harness that matches your college's school colors is NOT a civil right. :crazy:

When a disabled person drives they have specially marked license plates and driver's license. They still have to pass a driving test.

Why, when someone suggests something similar for dogs and legitimate handlers, people with SDs get all kinds of bent out of shape?

Business owners are getting sued left and right for not complying with ADA regs, they sure as heck aren't going to question a dog in their store dressed up orange and green. Go gators.......


----------



## ILGHAUS

Everyone of course is entitled to state their opinion on certifications, tags, ID and colors -- pro or con.

My opinion on colors is who cares. I have a 4 month old bi-colored male shepherd who I am praying will be my SD in about 20 months. From the time that I got him all of his collars, harnesses and leashes have been black. I don't care if someone puts all orange, all purple, or any other color or combo on their dog. I only care that what ever they use is clean and is proper for the safety of their dog. 



> When a disabled person drives they have specially marked license plates and driver's license.


I hope that never comes to the U.S. I only have that I must wear glasses or contacts when I drive. 



> All because I said having a working SD harness that matches your college's school colors is NOT a civil right.


Now that would be a silly thing to lobby for and if it happened I would have to go with Orange and Blue for Univ. of FL. But joking aside, SDs are not required to wear harnesses. I will have one on my dog because of my mobility issues otherwise he would probably only be in a black leather collar w/ his rabies and county tags as required for all dogs in my area, and black leather leash. Only other ID that I always put on my dogs is a plate secured to their collar with their name, my name, my home phone # and my mobile #.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

In GA they have a special designation on the license plate or a tag hanging from the window. I was told that was true of the driver license as well. I did not confirm it though, to be honest.

As for the harness, the one the young lady was speaking of was a regular Julius K9 harness. Nothing special. The problem is not the harness or type of equipment but the ridiculous resistance to *any sort* of official and consistent ID on the dogs. 

People like myself (and there have been other threads on this) are having a harder time looking upon SDs as serious professional working dogs. Instead, as more and more dogs are designated as "Service Dogs" the whole concept becomes watered down. I have lost quite a bit of respect for SDs as a whole because of the lack of seriousness in the community as a whole.

The fact of the matter is business owners are very unlikely to call any attention to SDs in their store for fear of a discrimination law suit. Therefore fakers will continue to fake. I met a lady last year who bragged about taking her GSD to the Atlanta Aquarium. I asked if she wasn't worried about getting caught, she laughed, she does it all the time and gets away with it because no one dares push her on it. So yeah, the fakers find it funny too.


----------



## ILGHAUS

> In GA they have a special designation on the license plate or a tag hanging from the window.


Yes, we have those in FL and I am going to say at least most other states. But those license plates cost the driver extra and are used by some so they don't have to worry about not hanging their tag and getting a citation. But those are options. 

More and more places also have the same for our military vets who have earned a Purple Heart.

Sorry you have lost respect for working SDs, but there are many many people who owe any real quality of life to their dogs. As to lack of seriousness " in the community as a whole" I know how hard it is to train these dogs either by reputable training organizations or by those of us who take pride in training, handling or advocating for these dogs. 

My own pup began his training at the age of 10 weeks of age and will not be passed to Service Dog status until he is at least 24 months of age and will get his final certification of his hips. 

*But we have gone way off topic in a discussion on the Bill going through the FL Senate now to update our SD statute.*


----------



## ILGHAUS

*Another major point in FL Bill*

I have not heard yet when the next Senate action will be.

Another point being addressed in the Bill is the following concerns on an additional type of disability -- mental disabilities.

New Bill wording:
(b) "Individual with a disability" means a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of the individual."

Current Law:
(b)"Individual with a disability" means a person who is deaf, hard of hearing, blind, visually impaired, or otherwise physically disabled."

As you can see the current statute only speaks about state protections for handlers with physical disabilities while the change would also cover handlers with mental disabilities. (This covers a good many people such as our returning military vets with PTSD. We do need to remember that they are not the only ones who need these protections as many in our civilian population also have need of SDs for their mental disabilities.)


http://myfloridahouse.com/Sections/...ocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0071&Session=2015


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yes I have lost respect and that is why I just shrug when I read things about bills referring specifically to SD related issues. 

Earlier you were discussing the penalty, with respect to this bill, for those who fake having SDs. Without a clear and *liability free* way to ID "real" SDs to enforce it, it isn't going to make a difference. I wish people in this community would apply peer pressure amongst themselves rather then expecting society to walk these tricky regulatory tight ropes having to guess, "Is that a real SD or fake?". That simply is an unfair burden and it ends up hurting the SD community.

As for the change in definition of "Individual with a disability", speaking specifically to the use of SDs, it doesn't matter. It does matter in other areas though. I do recognize that.


----------



## JustJim

This:


ILGHAUS said:


> New Bill wording:
> (b) "Individual with a disability" means a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of the individual."


sounds like they are bringing definitions in-line with the ADA while otherwise modifying the statute.


----------



## ILGHAUS

Yes, there is the trend to bring the states' minimum more in line with the ADA / DOJ. Plus many states are also adding additional rights such as allowing dogs in training to be taken into previously off limit areas for training purposes.


----------



## SuperG

Ilghaus,

Those who truly deserve the benefits of our society generally get less than they should because of the frauds. It's commonplace today and who suffers? Those for whom the programs were designed for. I have to agree with Gwenhwyfair and not just because Gwenhwyfair agreed with me earlier but this truly is the solution " Without a clear and *liability free* way to ID "real" SDs to enforce it, it isn't going to make a difference.". Unless of course the frauds change their behavior willingly....not going to happen IMO. I would wager that in very short order, if establishments had a method to verify the authenticity of a SD and the frauds were shut down with heavy fines and/or penalties because of this process...the problem would vanish. As long as there are any loopholes to allow the frauds to continue their current practices, the behavior will continue. I just don't see any other solution unfortunately....maybe there is but it escapes me.

SuperG


----------



## JustJim

Gwenhwyfair said:


> When a disabled person drives they have specially marked license plates and driver's license. They still have to pass a driving test.





> In GA they have a special designation on the license plate or a tag hanging from the window. I was told that was true of the driver license as well. I did not confirm it though, to be honest.


I _did_ take the time to check. In the 50 United States, the requirement for special plates/tags/etc is only to identify the individual as being eligible to use what are commonly called "hadicapped parking spaces." It isn't a general thing that applies to everyone with a disability who operates a motor vehicle, and such plates/tags are often granted to caregivers for purposes of transporting individuals with disabilities. 

As one who has spent a lifetime with what is sometimes called an "invisible disability", I think Florida's definitional change will have significant impact specifically when it comes to the use of service dogs. Probably half the people I know who use service dogs wouldn't qualify under the previous definition--so yeah, it matters. 

Gwenhwyfair and SuperG are saying that under the current rules there is no way to verify if a dog is actually a service dog, because of concerns over liability/potential lawsuits. How can they say the current rules don't work when the majority of providers of public accommodation are not only not trying to work under the current rules, they don't even know what the current rules say? It seems they are saying that "because the current rules are inconvenient for us, we are going to place an additional burden on you because of your disability". This is something the ADA is specifically designed to prevent.

My point--and this is the point that got me hounded off one service dog forum and harassed for several months after I left (OOPS! I mean "resulted in me experiencing peer pressure from the community to agree with licensing schemes")--is that if you are going to insist on violating the rights of service dog owners in this manner, you need to have a better reason than that the current system is "inconvenient".


----------



## ILGHAUS

*3rd Point of FL Bill*

" providing conditions for a public accommodation to exclude or remove a service animal;"

People talk about business owners not having any rights which is not true. Per the ADA and FL State Statute SDs can be refused permission to remain in a business. The owners must take their dog out and then are welcomed back in the business. It is not the fault of the SD community that many business owners either do not know this or else do not take the time to instruct their management or employees. Some business owners just do not want to be bothered.

And it is one of the easiest ways to make sure badly behaved SDs or any dog is not inside their areas of business. Any dog showing aggression toward any person or other animal in the facility may be removed. Any dog that eliminates in the facility may be removed. Any dog that behaves badly in the facility may be removed. (Removed = owner being told that they must take their dog out of the business and then the owner/handler may return.) *The business owner does not need to know if dog is SD or pet. They have the right to tell owner they must remove the dog. *

The business owner or employee can not ask for the dog to be removed under this right based on the fact that someone may be have an allergy or that someone is afraid of dogs. The handler may not be told to remove the dog based on breed or assumption on how the dog may act based on breed or type. 

_(f) A public accommodation may exclude or remove any animal from the premises, including a service animal, if the animal is out of control and the animal’s handler does not take effective action to control it, the animal is not housebroken, or the animal’s behavior poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others. Allergies and fear of animals are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to an individual with a service animal. If a service animal is excluded or removed for being a direct threat to others, the public accommodation must provide the individual with a disability the option of continuing access to the public accommodation without having the service animal on the premises._

The above statement is based on a like statement by the DOJ.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

:thumbup:

What I don't understand is why the SD community rejects the idea with great ire too** It really is the most straight forward solution. :shrug:


(**You are a horrible uncaring human for even suggesting it....so I have literally been told.)




SuperG said:


> Ilghaus,
> 
> Those who truly deserve the benefits of our society generally get less than they should because of the frauds. It's commonplace today and who suffers? Those for whom the programs were designed for. I have to agree with Gwenhwyfair and not just because Gwenhwyfair agreed with me earlier but this truly is the solution " Without a clear and *liability free* way to ID "real" SDs to enforce it, it isn't going to make a difference.". Unless of course the frauds change their behavior willingly....not going to happen IMO. I would wager that in very short order, if establishments had a method to verify the authenticity of a SD and the frauds were shut down with heavy fines and/or penalties because of this process...the problem would vanish. As long as there are any loopholes to allow the frauds to continue their current practices, the behavior will continue. I just don't see any other solution unfortunately....maybe there is but it escapes me.
> 
> SuperG


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

JustJim, all a faker has to do is threaten a civil rights lawsuit if the business owner tries to "guess" and figure out if it's a real SD or not. You know darn well big or small business they will say it's not worth it unless the dog is being so obnoxious or "badly behaved" that might tilt the situation. That's the bar though, even per Iglhaus badly behaved dogs. You still don't know if it's a "real SD" or not and if it is then you can still be accused of discrimination. Then it's up to the judge....

Sometimes you guys are your own worst enemies ya know? 

For the record due to some recent serious health issues of my own I am not totally without compassion and understanding. The solution regarding fakers that would be fairest and simplest is ID, even if, JustJim, it's "inconvenient" for the service dog handlers. Perhaps having it added to the ID we all must carry, such as driver license or for non drivers state ID, student IDs. 

It's really not a zero sum game, it's about setting up both sides to succeed instead of accusing the business owners and society as not wanting to be "inconvenienced".

Anyhow. Have a nice day all.


----------



## ILGHAUS

Can we try to keep the topic on the FL Bill that looks like it will go through the Senate very soon. 

For those who want changes it is always easier to start with your state -- get involved like the rest of us. Talk to Your State Representatives and Senators in person, write emails and make phone calls. If you really want a change just posting about how things should be on a dog forum is not going to really do your opinion any good. Get out there and speak up in the manner that is legal and does work.

As for the Federal Laws -- years before the ADA update there were opportunities for all citizens as individuals and as members of various groups to give their thoughts. Did you or your dog group or civic group take that opportunity?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Deleted.

The thread title is about fakers wrt this bill.

Since I don't live in FL all I can say is..I see nothing in this bill will change the faker paradigm.


Congrats, I guess.


----------



## SuperG

ILGHAUS said:


> Can we try to keep the topic on the FL Bill that looks like it will go through the Senate very soon.
> 
> For those who want changes it is always easier to start with your state -- get involved like the rest of us. Talk to Your State Representatives and Senators in person, write emails and make phone calls. If you really want a change just posting about how things should be on a dog forum is not going to really do your opinion any good. Get out there and speak up in the manner that is legal and does work.
> 
> As for the Federal Laws -- years before the ADA update there were opportunities for all citizens as individuals and as members of various groups to give their thoughts. Did you or your dog group or civic group take that opportunity?


I can't argue the logic of *" For those who want changes it is always easier to start with your state -- get involved like the rest of us"*....Since I am not involved at your level, your efforts eclipse my opinions because you actively are involved in trying to create change through our legislators, I respect that. Talk is cheap many times and I give you credit for trying.

Question for you, if I chose to contact my representatives at a local level and suggested that we need a system which allows an authorized individual of any public accommodation the legal right to challenge the authenticity of a SD to ensure it is legitimate, would you favor this or not? It is an honest question and I am curious to your reply because you obviously are more involved in this sector of life than I am.

FWIW, when I see an obvious fake SD, I will ask questions to the individual, innocent questions which further exposes their deception. I am allowed to ask any question I choose as a patron of the same business without any legal recourse, as far as I know. So, in a roundabout way, I feel I am doing my little part to help correct the situation by bringing some pressure on the frauds.

I think all of us our on the same page regarding the issue but just have a different opinion on the effectiveness of legislated remedies which still allow the cheats to exist.

SuperG


----------



## ILGHAUS

If you feel that it is your right to go up to a stranger and ask about their medical problems let me ask you this ...

How would you feel if a complete stranger came up and began asking you personal questions? 

If you wanted to dash into a store and pick up a gallon of milk, you feel like you are coming down with the flu, do you really want to stop several times and talk to someone about things that by law are personal?

Businesses are given information (yes tons of it and most is boring to them) on what their rights are. There are groups that will speak to them and their managers on what they are allowed to ask and how to proceed in a lawful manner. 

And yes, you can pick up your phone and speak to your politicians or a member of their staff and express your concerns over current law and what you would like to see changed. You can even call and ask for a face to face meeting. All have two offices. One back in their home area and one at the State Capital. Many areas have such things as town hall meetings or other opportunities to come out and speak to their elected officers. 

Don't want to speak directly -- then send off an email or an old fashioned letter. 

Want to have an ID system put into place? Then lay down a plan on how it should be handled and start passing it out. Make sure you think over the following:
1. Who is going to be in charge of testing, filling out forms, issuing IDs?
2. Should a department already in place do this or should a new department be set up?
a) Department in place? What duties do you want them to pass over so they have time and resources to handle this? Hire more employees? Extend their current work hours and pay overtime? 
b) New Department? Where is it to be located? Who is to oversee it?
Remember budgets only go so far. Want to tack on new duties -- then be willing to come up with some creative ways to come up with the funding?

How many of these testing centers should there be? One per state? One per county? One per town? 

How many times do we hear people say -- I would like to get a CGC on my dog but there is no one near me to do the testing. 
Now remember that you are asking the disabled community to go to some agency to be tested.
Do you realize that most truly disabled live at or below the poverty level? Many do not have their own personal car. Many by virtue of their disability are not allowed to drive. Many do not live anywhere near public transportation. (If I had to hire a taxi, I would have to pay one to come to my home -- I live at least 30 miles from any dispatch and none that I know of would be willing to come pick me up but say they would and then drive me the 30 or more miles to a testing center that is 60 miles I would have to pay the fees and that is only one way. I don't know how much taxis cost but I'm sure it would be pretty costly. As for buses ... I would have to get a taxi to get to a bus route.) 

I'm not asking these questions and expecting answers from anyone. I am just putting them up so people can see just what the first level of problems may be. Have answers then give them to those who can use this information and begin working on your ideas. In fact, I think it may be a good idea for someone who is really interested in gathering ideas to begin a thread just on this topic. I am not being snarky, but would love to hear some new ideas from people that have given some real thought to the matter. Some advice, I would suggest that any that are serious to at least skim over their state statutes that are in place at this time and maybe at least read what the ADA states on the topic. 
_For a little more info there is also the DOJ, the Dept. of Transportation, HUD and the EOCC. 
These departments are the major ones overseeing the Federal Laws on Disability Rights._​


----------



## Stonevintage

I really don't understand what the big deal is. There is no disability/disorder that isn't recognized by the medical society. 

Your sick, you have a disability (physical or mental). It promises to be or has been long term - simple - your Dr writes a prescription that recommends you have a SD - just like any other medical aid, a wheelchair, a prescription, a room in a care facility. The basic premise is still there. A trained physician prescribes a thing that will improve your quality of life.

I can go to my doctor and get a recommendation for a service dog tomorrow, as I could have up to 8 years ago. I do not because society cannot readily see my disability. I have heard all the remarks - if some people cannot see a white cane, there's no disability and the person is a lair. 

I've seen 4 of my friends get dogs in the last 3 years - these were guys you would never know existed because they never went out into society, they couldn't, until they got dogs. I am still someone that only goes to the store, post office and one place where my friends are because I can't go anywhere else. I have a GSD now, they are begging me to get out and about with them - I can't because everyone is pointing fingers at me because I don't carry a white cane.....


----------



## SuperG

ILGHAUS said:


> If you feel that it is your right to go up to a stranger and ask about their medical problems let me ask you this ...
> 
> How would you feel if a complete stranger came up and began asking you personal questions?


Ohhhhhhhhhh, you missed the application of my approach by a million miles. First and foremost, I would never ask a stranger with a fairly obvious fake SD about any medical or mental issues they might have, much less a person with a legitimate SD. I might be coarse at times but not insensitive. 

Let me describe my behavior in these situations when I see what I think is an obvious abuse of SD privileges. Since I pretty much love all dogs, I am naturally drawn to them wherever I might see them, especially in places where the general public is not allowed to take their dogs. My opening question is a simple greeting such as " Hi, how are you today"..with a smile on my face of course. My next question usually is " I love dogs and it looks like you have a great one there, what kind of dog is it?" Then some back and forth conversation on how wonderful dogs are, etc. I will then play stupid, which I do well, comes naturally for me and say something to the effect.." I didn't know this store allowed customers to bring their dogs in here like a Home Depot, when did this store start allowing people to bring their dogs in here" They most always answer the question with a reply like " Oh, they don't, this is a SD" and I respond. " Wow, that's great, I've heard it takes a special dog, lots of training and qualifications, did you train the dog yourself?"...eventually the conversation comes around to the requirements and licensing for a legitimate SD and I just simply ask, playing stupid again, "oh, I didn't know that, is it something they just put on a government issued card like a driver's license or is it a vest like I see some SDs wearing ?" At this point, the person many times will get a bit distant/defensive or say it's not required to be present at all times and I just say in a parting comment " So, you are saying I could bring my dog in here as long as I pretend my dog is a SD because nobody can ask for proof?" I usually get an "ummmmmmm......" with an immediate change of conversation. My guess is any person who I had this conversation with, who is legitimate, would take me to task and strongly suggest otherwise, since they would share the same mentality about those who fraud the use of a SD. My last comment might be " I just read something the other day in the news about people faking a SD and it's really terrible a person would do such a thing because it is ruining a worthy benefit for those who truly require a SD". I never once have asked them about any physical/mental disability but many times the other person will bring it up as they try to substantiate and sell me on the idea that their "SD" is legitimate. 

ILGHSAUS, Your opinion on this, what I have found during these conversations as a common thread, the majority of what seems to be the frauds claim, when they themselves introduce what their "SD" provides for them is most always "emotional support". I don't know that much about SDs but "emotional support or stability" must be a qualifier for having a SD and proper licensing I assume?? In your estimation is this what most of the frauds claim their "SDs" provide as the service? 

Another question for you, how many times are 2 dogs used together by one human as a SD? And, should the conduct of most every SD be pretty darned solid as far as general behavior such as no barking, no sniffing every other item in a grocery store, no leash pulling, no loss of concentration and wandering towards distractions every time the dog crosses one? These are the signals, when I see them might very create the conversation I described above.

Lastly, did my encounter and conversation with a likely fraud have any effect on whether that person continues breaking the rules? Probably not but if it put one little dent in their charade and others did the same, it might, maybe, possibly make them think twice in the future.


SuperG


----------



## ILGHAUS

Again, in the U.S. there is no licensing of a SD other than that which is required by law for all dogs which is usually a Rabies Tag and a County (or City) tag. 

Emotional Support is not a trained task for a SD. All dogs have in them the possibility to be there for us after a rough day at work, at fight with a spouse or other family member, a close friend or family member becoming seriously ill or passing away. The DOJ in their definition of a SD states that fact. But, for a SD we consider emotional support a side benefit just like anyone else may do with a pet. 

Please just remember that you may only have contact with one or two people with a disability in a week or more while I have contact with many in that same time. I belong to several SD sites that have a thousand or more members each and we deal with people with major problems along with some small ones. Many just want to be left alone to live their life like others in the non-disabled community. On shopping, we have some people that if they have to answer too many questions, maybe the two at the door from the employee who allows them inside, one from a customer or two that they are going by in the store, another from someone in the check-out line, and maybe another one from the cashier they become overwhelmed and begin to shut down. I hear dozens of people everyday making such statements that they only go out when they have to and the like. 

But there isn't really anymore that I can say on the subject. If you think you are knowledgeable enough to pick out the real SDs from the faux wanna be's based on how their handlers answer you then ... well you are going to go ahead and do it. 

Sorry if this isn't answering your questions but I really need to do some non computer and phone work for awhile.


----------



## JustJim

Gwenhwyfair said:


> JustJim, all a faker has to do is threaten a civil rights lawsuit if the business owner tries to "guess" and figure out if it's a real SD or not. You know darn well big or small business they will say it's not worth it unless the dog is being so obnoxious or "badly behaved" that might tilt the situation.


Having seen people perceived as "fakers" questioned and asked to leave a business establishment, I know better. Bringing a civil rights lawsuit for this is not as simple as people make it out to be. From experience, I know that even having appropriate documentation isn't enough to guarantee access, and the denial of access (and injuries incurred when I returned without the dog and fell several times) wasn't enough to file a civil rights lawsuit. (I looked into it afterwards, it wasn't something I threatened before or during the incident.)



Gwenhwyfair said:


> The solution regarding fakers that would be fairest and simplest is ID, even if, JustJim, it's "inconvenient" for the service dog handlers. Perhaps having it added to the ID we all must carry, such as driver license or for non drivers state ID, student IDs.


No, the "fairest and simplest" solution is to go after the fakers rather than restricting the civil rights of the people who are following the rules. This is what the proposed Florida law does: institute a state-level penalty on those who break the ADA rules. It is far easier to get things accomplished in state, rather than federal, courts. 

Business owners, etc, may think they have no options. The may think they may face a civil rights lawsuit. I'm not responsible for their willful ignorance, and resent the suggestion that my rights should be restricted for their convenience.


----------



## SuperG

ILGHAUS said:


> Again, in the U.S. there is no licensing of a SD other than that which is required by law for all dogs which is usually a Rabies Tag and a County (or City) tag.


\


See ! shows my ignorance of the reality of the situation. Couple of questions, WHY not? Believe me, I'm not a fan of licensing except where it has merit. Special parking permits and official documents of one sort or another are required, I'm rather surprised the issuing authorities haven't cashed in on SDs yet. Now, you have created a dilemma for me since I view licensing as a revenue stream for the government, which could be argued has gotten to the point of overkill.

As far as "how can I tell if it's a real SD...?" comment. I gave you my criterion and would be curious if I am off the mark as well. Maybe a SD that barks at times and sniffs at everything in a store and is easily distracted is a legitimate SD? Beats me, now you have me thinking, I guess I thought a SD needed some type of paperwork or certification which proved that it was really a SD.....Maybe I have been working people who actually have real SDs but I kind of doubt it....but maybe.

Your point about legitimate SD owners getting hassled at numerous times on any particular outing is a good point but if I had my way and made the laws, it would be short-lived and then mostly nonexistent except for those who are simply curious about a well trained capable dog. I don't know that you could ever ask dog enthusiasts to be something they aren't.

You don't need to sugarcoat your answers, I'm all about learning and enjoy a strong opinion at times as it indicates the person has conviction regarding what they are talking about....doesn't mean I won't challenge it after my personal research following. However, don't be too harsh on me or I will tell a moderator.


SuperG


----------



## JustJim

SuperG, under ADA, a service dog is essentially a medical device. There is no requirement to license a medical device, or the user. The medical device (in this case a service dog) allows the user to better-perform "activities of daily living". Generally speaking, a person without a disability is not required to have a special license or ID in order to perform these "activities"; requiring a license or ID for someone with a disability to do the same thing restricts the civil rights of the person with a disability. 

Your "approach" towards what you think are "fakers" it strikes me as harassment. Do you behave in the same manner--make the same judgements--about people who use other assistive devices, such as a walker or wheelchair?


----------



## SuperG

JustJim said:


> SuperG,
> 
> Your "approach" towards what you think are "fakers" it strikes me as harassment. Do you behave in the same manner--make the same judgements--about people who use other assistive devices, such as a walker or wheelchair?


I appreciate your thoughts and can mostly appreciate what you have stated. As far as your question ...*"Do you behave in the same manner--make the same judgements--about people who use other assistive devices, such as a walker or wheelchair?"* I think I have an answer for you...one example for you are the people who use the free motorized shopping carts supplied by many stores. I observe life and am a people watcher of sorts, I learn much about myself by observing the conduct and behavior of others, I don't do this to rationalize my poor behavior and say to myself " Well, other people take advantage of the 'honor system" so I guess I can as well". I'll use an old cliche' but I think in this forum you're somewhat "preaching to the choir". I basically have contempt for those who take advantage of privilege and abuse this privilege which is reserved for those whom which the "privilege" was created for. Every person who uses a motorized shopping cart or parks in a designated parking slot without true necessity is taking away from the benefit which was intended and provided for those who truly are deserving. It reeks of selfishness and lack of concern for their fellow human and THIS is why I have such a strong opinion. I am on your side but I sense you think otherwise but please believe me, you have read me wrong. When I have heard people talk about feigning a condition so they can take a shorter waiting line designed for those who it was intended, I see red and will ridicule them if given half an opportunity and proper justification. Cruise ship boarding lines is a great example of what I just cited. 

I think the best way I can answer your thoughts and questions is by asking the same question to you with a slight change. What judgements do you make of people who prostitute certain benefits which are reserved for those whom they were designed for and in the process make your situation more difficult than it should be? I am not the problem, it is the abusers who are the problem and I do not play well with abusers of this nature, I neither have kind words for them or respect because I believe in fair play not cheating the system for selfish reasons. There was a day and age where every SD one saw was 100% legitimate and nobody challenged it, nobody. There was a time, when there was more "honor" and culpability displayed by the masses. Times have changed.....It is not because of people like me which increase the hardship on those who are deserving, it is the frauds, cheats and selfish who are responsible for this problem, so please be thoughtful enough to consider this before treating me as if I am responsible for the problem. I would only "harass" those who are cheating the system. I might have my feelings hurt by your words because you have no idea about who I am or my level of empathy but I will take this casually because of the medium we are using to exchange thoughts. I could go on about the hardship I have seen others endure because of the abusers in life but hopefully you have picked up on my position and it is not required.

Respectfully,

SuperG


----------



## JustJim

SuperG said:


> I am on your side but I sense you think otherwise but please believe me, you have read me wrong.


SuperG, I pulled the above quote out of context, not to pick on you but because I think it is important to understanding why so many people with disabilities object to the various mandatory license/certification schemes.

Like most folks, I just want to live my life as best I can, without interference. I don't want people "on my side" because I have a disability. I don't want people opposed to me because I have a disability. Either people allow me to live my life without interference, or they don't; if they don't, I don't care why that is. 

The proposed Florida law, and similar approaches, wouldn't interfere with my life. It would address what many consider to be a problem, and do so within the framework of current (federal) law. I can't see anything to which I should object; if I were in Florida (or if similar legislation were proposed here in my home state) I'd probably support it.

Despite the claims of their supporters, the various mandatory license/certification schemes (such as the recent attempt in Maine) are directly targeted at people with disabilities. They have the effect of placing unnecessary limitations on the rights of people with disabilities. I cannot support, and would actively oppose, such legislation. It is my belief that the majority of such schemes are proposed solely for the convenience of the people who support them, and with total disregard for the rights of those affected. 

If "fakers" were the big concern the supporters claim, getting >95% voluntary compliance with registration/certification is attainable. But "voluntary compliance" isn't the goal; "mandatory" and "control" are the goals of the people promoting these schemes.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

The SD community is the one concerned about fakers Jim. See this thread for example.

Ironically I came into these discussions with very high regard for SD dogs and handlers. As time has gone on it's posts like yours which have gradually dissuaded me.


Life isn't perfect. I fought a serious and life threatening illness last year. I saw people every week who were losing their battles.

My point is you don't have the moral high ground you think you do.

"Inconvenience" is not an excuse. Lack of ID and standards = unprofessional and enables fakers.

Personally I don't care. You can't help people who don't want to be helped.

The lady at petsmart who bragged and laughed about faking her dog laughed because she knew she had the upper hand. If she did this and got away with it at a public facility like the Atlanta Aquarium you know darn well she is getting away with it elsewhere.

There are people in the SD community who think IDs are the way to go but they get shut out.....I posted a link to an article with a SD trainer who felt IDs were the right answer, in another thread, about the faker topic.

Anyhow.

Carry on but don't expect anything to change until the SD community steps up and accepts with and deals with the _realities_ outside of their issues as well.

We all have to deal with "inconveniences" in life. Suffering is all around us. Alleviating suffering is helped by accepting certain realities. IDs would actually empower SD handlers if you get past the thoughts of you are suffering enough as it is.....it's a paradigm shift, I know.

All the best to you Jim. LLAP.


----------



## ILGHAUS

Talking about the SD community needing to step up and solve the problems ... now please a little more research may take care of some of this doubt. 

It is the members of the SD community who are behind most of the work behind any change in SD laws. Here in FL it is members of the disabled community who met with state reps to try to find someone to sponsor what we consider are needed changes. It is such members who traveled from various points around the state to meet with our elected officials both at their home offices and in the state capital. It was such members who spent multi-hours on the phone, sent emails and letters. It was such members who spent their time going to local meet the candidate meetings. It is because of the disabled community who for years have done these that it now looks like FL will be able to call the local law enforcement to Public Access Disputes, to allow more training options for our military vets with PTSD and to finally have a way to do something against those who insist on claiming their dogs as SDs that have no business being out in the community.

If you go to the first link that I posted about the discussions going on in Maine -- who is there? It is people with disabilities meeting and wanting to work with others to come to a solution. 

This happens over and over around the country. Many of these meetings are open to the public including business owners. Who takes the time to come to them -- SD trainers and handlers. 

Like I have said in other posts, I am a member of at least 8 SD groups. This discussion has gone on for years and the solutions are not as easy as many seem to believe. In the meantime, the scam registries on the Internet grow and grow. They call themselves U.S. something, or Federal something, use a lot of red/white/blue fonts, place an Eagle or a U.S. Flag on their ID cards and push how easy it is to be able to take FeFe everywhere you go. Some have good PR and Marketing people on board as they make flyers and write up some pretty good articles and then down on the bottom insert their company logos.


----------



## SuperG

JustJim said:


> SuperG,
> 
> Like most folks, I just want to live my life as best I can, without interference. I don't want people "on my side" because I have a disability. I don't want people opposed to me because I have a disability. Either people allow me to live my life without interference, or they don't; if they don't, I don't care why that is.


What a large boat you just described.

For the record, the state of MN and in it's definition of a service animal it includes" *A dog whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support does not qualify as a service animal. *" Service Animal Legislation : Minnesota Department of Human Rights

The ADA also describes a service animal is not a pet. 

This is where the laws are being broken but the laws have no measures or checks to enforce compliance. So, the laws are basically worthless as far as stopping the frauds.

*"....life without interference...." *and * " I don't want people "on my side" because I have a disability."* What a dilemma and I believe it could happen but one would have to live on a deserted island. The notion that you can eliminate the human element of one's conscience is never going to happen unless you wear a large sign that says " Leave me alone". Humans cannot read others minds, so I choose to gamble and take a risk when I come across particular situations. In doing so, I have experienced both sides of the coin. As an example: When I see someone having difficulty in a grocery store reaching an item due to any reason whether it be they are simply short in stature or any other limiting factor, I will stop and observe before "rushing" in to be a martyr and all ( sarcasm at my expense ). When I make the decision to gamble and go try and be of assistance, I keep a very open mind because there is the distinct possibility I could met with an attitude similar to what you expressed earlier. Independence is a sacred thing to many and probably becomes more significant in certain situations to some individuals. If the individual, either rudely or politely tells me to basically shove off, I'm cool with that and move on, I appreciate the process and rather applaud the principles of self reliance. However, there are more times where trying to pitch in and help my fellow human without displaying a diminishing mentality, is received and accomplished, no big deal, we all go about our business. I do not believe I will ever change my conscience and how it guides me and I think it is unrealistic for anyone to expect others to behave differently than how their conscience suggests....for better or worse.

Anyway, this thread has kind of taken a detour and I perhaps helped steer it off course but is has been a bit enlightening and for my selfish reasons, I have learned a bit about this topic.


SuperG


----------



## ILGHAUS

One huge bump in the road to go after faux SD handlers was that to punish such offenders would be hard to fund. With all jails facing overcrowding situations do you really want to toss more people into a jail cell for several days? 

It was a great idea, in my opinion, and seems to be greatly accepted as the House Bill went all the way through without any Nay votes and the same is true so far with the Senate Bill. The difference is that there is no upfront jail sentencing nor trying to get $$ from people who would then turn around and claim they did not have money for fines. FL Bills said put them to work. Make them serve so many hours of Community Service and they must do it within 6 months vrs those who keep putting it off in other circumstances. 

In the past, business owners would have to pay for a lawyer and possibly end up paying large court costs to take someone to court. Now, it would be a state law which means local law enforcement can become involved. No waiting for up to 2 or more years just to be sent to mediation at the Federal Level. 

Legal proceedings are vastly different when it comes to Civil Rights Laws vrs. Criminal Laws and Federal Laws vrs. State Statutes vrs. Local Ordinances. 

*


----------



## SuperG

ILGHAUS said:


> One huge bump in the road to go after faux SD handlers was that to punish such offenders would be hard to fund. With all jails facing overcrowding situations do you really want to toss more people into a jail cell for several days?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



Nope, jail isn't the punishment I would prefer for the frauds. I believe the FL measures are more on the mark focusing on an appropriate community service as the penalty.

SuperG


----------



## JustJim

Gwenhwyfair, I'm sorry to hear of your illness. I'd not wish that on anyone. But I've not "claimed the moral high ground": I've just asked to be allowed to make decisions about my life (including medical decisions) in the same manner as people who don't have a disability. The same way you were presumably able to do when ill. 

That--the ability to live as "normal" a life as possible--is what ADA attempts to put in place. I'd be one of the last to claim the law is perfect, but it is a significant and major improvement over the way things were prior to the 1990 passage of the bill. The passage of ADA effectively opened-up a world of options for many people who had previously had to live within the choices allowed to them or made for them, while watching others be allowed to make their own decisions. Anything affecting these options is going to result in push-back from the people affected; telling them they "don't understand" or that they "need to be realistic" is insulting at best.

I'm aware that some within the population of SD handlers are in favor of licensing/IDs, but am also aware that just as many are opposed to it. The "reality" is that under the current regulatory framework, there is no way a mandatory certification/ID system can be implemented. 

There are other approaches. The Florida bill would penalize those who break the current law. There are different forms of voluntary systems, the most common being a "weak" model where a doctor's note is provided at time of licensing, in exchange for (possibly free or reduced-rate) SD tags. There are other voluntary systems where additional documentation is required, or where different incentives are offered. Survey results suggest that some such systems may have compliance rates >95% after a 3-year introductory period. 

Until ADA is changed, it comes down to approaches such as that of Florida, or the various voluntary registrations schemes.


----------



## Stonevintage

I still don't understand what the big issue is. If you are disabled and you have any sort of medical history to back it up, show it. But only show it if you are accused of lying about a disability and only show it to law endorsement and require a report be filed. This protects your rights PLUS. 

I contacted my local PD and they simply said they have never had an issue when someone stood on their rights and requested law endorsement show up to resolve the conflict. Their only job was to educate the business owner. They have never in their records pursued the issue. I'm sure this is because they have proper training and how they can really be in a world of doo if they make the wrong call. 

IMO- we as disabled need to understand that there are a lot of false claims going on, just like everything else - there's bad guys. I also believe that the minute you are questioned and you request law endorsement be called that you are not going to have a problem anymore. I would be more than happy to invoke this right to resolve any question to try to help business owners separate the lying idiots from those who the law protects.


----------



## ILGHAUS

Where the Bill is at currently ...

04-23-2015 -- Placed on Calendar, on 2nd reading

04-24-2015 -- Read 3rd time -SJ 626 
• CS passed; YEAS 38 NAYS 0 -SJ 627 





http://archive.flsenate.gov/data/civics/idea_to_law_chart.pdf


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

:thumbup: :thumbup: 

A fair and pragmatic view, IMO. 




Stonevintage said:


> I still don't understand what the big issue is. If you are disabled and you have any sort of medical history to back it up, show it. But only show it if you are accused of lying about a disability and only show it to law endorsement and require a report be filed. This protects your rights PLUS.
> 
> I contacted my local PD and they simply said they have never had an issue when someone stood on their rights and requested law endorsement show up to resolve the conflict. Their only job was to educate the business owner. They have never in their records pursued the issue. I'm sure this is because they have proper training and how they can really be in a world of doo if they make the wrong call.
> 
> IMO- we as disabled need to understand that there are a lot of false claims going on, just like everything else - there's bad guys. I also believe that the minute you are questioned and you request law endorsement be called that you are not going to have a problem anymore. I would be more than happy to invoke this right to resolve any question to try to help business owners separate the lying idiots from those who the law protects.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yup. It would be more cost effective to have standards and I.D. :shrug: An ounce of prevention.

Its been awhile since I've read up on it, but it's not the severity of the punishment which deters most would be wrong doers, it's *also* the *certainty* of the punishment. 

I keep going back to my petsmart example. I was shocked at how brazen she was. She can be brazen because she knows darn well the chances of her getting caught are very low. 

A note about liability. Jim mentioned earlier that it's hard to bring a civil suit. I'm not sure how true that is or not but it's really not germane. It only takes a few successful $ 1 mill. lawsuits to jack up the cost of liability insurance ACROSS the board folks. Insurance spreads risk and builds in a profit margin to boot. So we all feel the pain.

I am a small business owner but I mostly work out of my house and travel and I still have to cope with issues regarding liability. One or two lawsuits in my sector and bam, up goes the insurance for all policy holders. The brick and mortar shops have it even worse.




ILGHAUS said:


> One huge bump in the road to go after faux SD handlers was that to punish such offenders would be hard to fund. With all jails facing overcrowding situations do you really want to toss more people into a jail cell for several days?
> 
> It was a great idea, in my opinion, and seems to be greatly accepted as the House Bill went all the way through without any Nay votes and the same is true so far with the Senate Bill. The difference is that there is no upfront jail sentencing nor trying to get $$ from people who would then turn around and claim they did not have money for fines. FL Bills said put them to work. Make them serve so many hours of Community Service and they must do it within 6 months vrs those who keep putting it off in other circumstances.
> 
> In the past, business owners would have to pay for a lawyer and possibly end up paying large court costs to take someone to court. Now, it would be a state law which means local law enforcement can become involved. No waiting for up to 2 or more years just to be sent to mediation at the Federal Level.
> 
> Legal proceedings are vastly different when it comes to Civil Rights Laws vrs. Criminal Laws and Federal Laws vrs. State Statutes vrs. Local Ordinances.
> 
> *


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Thank you Jim. I am fine now, however there are a lot of people I sat next to, that I chatted with and hugged, who are no longer here. So I appreciate my life, with all it's bumps and unfairness too, more then before. 

Here's the thing, at some point 'as normal' as possible is subjective. At what point does it become such a burden on the rest of society as to be untenable? Diminishing returns if you will.

Having experienced temporary disabling medical conditions I have a better feel for what it is like. Again I am fortunate that my body was able to heal and get back to normal. Some people do not heal well and we have a close family friend who had to go on long term disability. Anyhow, the point is if I needed a SD I would take pride in having the ID. It shows the dog and I have put in the work to be a team. I would NOT have a problem with an I.D. that simply proves my dog has passed standards and is a professional serious working dog. The I.D. need not reveal any details about my condition. I don't see it inhibiting the goal of 'as normal' as possible. I see it as enhancing the status and legal standing of me and my SD should I be unfairly confronted in a public venue.

It's also about meeting in the middle, compromising and finding ways to help others help you meet the goal of a normal as possible life.

The resistance to ID for SDs is based on outdated narratives and couched in false arguments, bolstered by social media venues that only validate, rather then problem solve.




JustJim said:


> Gwenhwyfair, I'm sorry to hear of your illness. I'd not wish that on anyone. But I've not "claimed the moral high ground": I've just asked to be allowed to make decisions about my life (including medical decisions) in the same manner as people who don't have a disability. The same way you were presumably able to do when ill.
> 
> *That--the ability to live as "normal" a life as possible--is what ADA attempts to put in place*. I'd be one of the last to claim the law is perfect, but it is a significant and major improvement over the way things were prior to the 1990 passage of the bill. The passage of ADA effectively opened-up a world of options for many people who had previously had to live within the choices allowed to them or made for them, while watching others be allowed to make their own decisions. Anything affecting these options is going to result in push-back from the people affected; telling them they "don't understand" or that they "need to be realistic" is insulting at best.
> 
> I'm aware that some within the population of SD handlers are in favor of licensing/IDs, but am also aware that just as many are opposed to it. The "reality" is that under the current regulatory framework, there is no way a mandatory certification/ID system can be implemented.
> 
> There are other approaches. The Florida bill would penalize those who break the current law. There are different forms of voluntary systems, the most common being a "weak" model where a doctor's note is provided at time of licensing, in exchange for (possibly free or reduced-rate) SD tags. There are other voluntary systems where additional documentation is required, or where different incentives are offered. Survey results suggest that some such systems may have compliance rates >95% after a 3-year introductory period.
> 
> Until ADA is changed, it comes down to approaches such as that of Florida, or the various voluntary registrations schemes.


----------



## ILGHAUS

Thank you Rep Jimmie T Smith and Sen Altman. The Service Dog Bill passed in the Senate on April 24 and is now headed to the Governor to be signed. There is no problem expected as it passed without any nays in both the House and the Senate. It is due to become law beginning July 1, 2015.

And a big thank you to all who helped in any manner to bring this law more in line with the ADA and to make it a criminal charge (local law enforcement and judicial system can step in) to claim a dog as a SD if it is not.


----------



## ILGHAUS

SUMMARY ANALYSIS

_... Florida law provides that an individual with a disability, defined as a person who is deaf, hard of hearing, blind, visually impaired, or otherwise physically disabled, is entitled to equal access to public accommodations, public employment, and housing accommodations. The individual may be accompanied by a trained service animal in all areas of public accommodations that the public is normally allowed to occupy. Any person who denies or interferes with the right of a person with a disability or a service animal trainer to access a place of public accommodation commits a second degree misdemeanor._ 
**********​
This law gives handlers the right to call in law enforcement to help them as needed. It is now a criminal offense in FL to interfere with a legal SD team.


http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/.../Documents/loaddoc.aspx...


----------



## ILGHAUS

"The bill revises the definition of the term “individual with a disability” to add an individual with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. A “physical or mental impairment” is defined in part as a physiological disorder or condition that affects at least one bodily function or a mental or psychological disorder as specified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The term “major life activity” is defined as a function such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working."

**********​
Disabling Mental Impairments or Psychological Disorders were not addressed before this Bill.


----------



## ILGHAUS

_" ... a public accommodation may ask if the animal is a service animal required because of a disability and what work the animal has been trained to perform. Additionally, the bill requires a service animal to be kept under the control of its handler. The bill authorizes a public accommodation to remove the animal if the animal is not under the handler’s control, is not housebroken, or poses a serious threat to others. The criminal penalty for interference with the right of a disabled individual or service animal trainer to use a place of public accommodation is modified to include the requirement that a person also perform 30 hours of community service for an organization that serves individuals with disabilities or for another entity, at the court’s discretion."_

**********

Brings FL state law into line with the DOJ/ADA and adds a penalty to anyone who interferes with the rights of a disabled individual or a SD trainer to take their legal SD (SDIT) into a place of public accommodation. This Bill also states the right of a Public Accommodation to remove a SD that is not under proper control.


----------



## ILGHAUS

_"Finally, the bill provides that knowingly and willfully misrepresenting oneself as being qualified to use a service animal or being a trainer of a service animal is a second degree misdemeanor. It also requires the person to perform 30 hours of community service for an organization that serves individuals with disabilities, or for another entity, at the court’s discretion."_


----------



## ILGHAUS

Quote from the Summary Analysis ...
_" A trainer of a service animal, while engaged in the training of the animal, has the same rights of access and obligations of liability for damage as an individual with a disability who is accompanied by a service animal."
_
--> ... while engaged in the training of the animal ... <--

I am not a legal source but I read this as while in the active training (with a specific purpose) and not just having the dog along while the handler does their normal shopping or running of errands.


----------



## lhczth

How do they determine if a person is a trainer of SD?


----------



## ILGHAUS

lhczth said:


> How do they determine if a person is a trainer of SD?


There are two questions that a "gatekeeper" at a business can ask. The one that would answer your question is:

Quote: A public accommodation may ask if the animal is required because of a disability ..."
_From Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public accommodations and in Commercial Facilities
Department of Justice, Civil rights Division
Federal Register, September 15, 2010_

At this point a handler would basically answer *Yes* while a trainer would state that they were a trainer. Some trainers may have something showing they are with XXX school or business or even an ID badge though I have never seen any requirement in any Federal Law that I have read nor have I heard from any reputable source that it is a requirement. This does not come up in discussions on Fed. Law as the topic of SDITs is not addressed at the Federal Level.

Requirements for SDITs and their trainers would be under various state laws. Some states have requirements on who can train and under what stipulations. FL is a state that allows Owner Trainers while some states do not. 

I can see where there will be problems with some of the language until there is either further clarification or cases begin going to court to form Case Law to give further guidance on this question. Those who are employed as a trainer will be able to easily produce some type of documentation to that fact while an individual training their own dog will have to be prepared in case they are ever faced with this in court. 

For someone like me, I have a log where I keep various papers, pictures, course receipts and forms as self-documentation on my training my dog.


----------



## lhczth

Thank you.


----------

