# Anyone can have a service dog ad....



## dazedtrucker

_Per copyright law ... information for educational purpose with proper link or credit to copyright owner may be less than 10% or the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole of printed article unless permission is given by copyright owner to copy in full. ~ Mod
To learn more you can go to The Doctrine of Fair Use, Section 107 published by the U.S. Copyright Office._

I just saw this ad an the side of my facebook.... pretty much "take your dog anywhere! No more harrassment taking your dog in restaurants! Go everywhere with your dog!"... I had to click on it... They are pretty much soliciting anyone and everyone to sign up for their service, and be allowed to take your dog everywhere.. it says free, but I wasn't about to fill out the app... bet you pay somewhere, advertising isn't free... and this isn't legit....
This is the website: Service Dog Registration Of America:Non-Profit Organization

This is the FAQs 1. How do I register my Service Dog and get my ID Tags?top
Very simple. You simply fill out the short form here with some of your information and some of your dogs information and your dog will immediately be registered. You will then be taken to the next page where you can order your ID cards which will be sent to you via USPS and you will receive a tracking number.



How are they getting away with this  What a slap in the face to real service animals


----------



## K-Shep

I saw the same web site not too long ago. It seems to work on the honor system. Not cool


----------



## SFGSSD

The "honor system" is the only legal system and unfortunately it is a loophole that is exploited by many. I do not know who they are but this is fallout from the way the law it. Don't get me wrong I am not supporting or defending them I do not know them so I cannot say for sure what their true intention is.

IMO mandatory realistic certification is the only way to close the door on the illegitimate incidents. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## martemchik

The way the law is written...anyone pretty much can walk into a store with a "service dog." There are very exact questions the store is allowed to ask you about the dog and if they ask the wrong question it could be considered discrimination according to the ADA and you can scream bloody murder. I know some people with disabilities and service dogs carry around an ADA handbook and will show a questioning employee their rights. At the end of the day, if you make a big enough squack and threaten legal action they'll probably leave you alone and let you do what ever you want (as long as you have a well behaved dog). If you are falsly claiming your dog as a service dog, and the dog does something bad, you'll be just as liable for injuries if your dog was a service dog.

SFGSSD is correct...the only way to "close" the loophole is mandatory certification. But that will never happen, mostly because it will be a huge obstacle for handler trained SDs and also for the huge variety of service dogs and disabilities there are. Plus...I really don't want my tax dollars going towards a service dog certification program...the current system works, while its abused by some, it probably helps a lot more than it gets abused.


----------



## Blanketback

8. ...but it’s also a crime to impersonate a service dog so don’t do it.

Boy, was I was happy to read that - I was thinking this was some scam to register pets as Service Dogs. Phew!


----------



## Lin

Please see this recent thread: http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...32754-united-states-service-dog-registry.html

Unfortunately there are many of these sites.


----------



## SFGSSD

Lin said:


> Please see this recent thread: http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...32754-united-states-service-dog-registry.html
> 
> Unfortunately there are many of these sites.


And unfortunately many people lie and break the law when it comes to Service Dogs. The humor in this is that the ones that are doing nothing wrong get blamed for the illegal activities of others.




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Cheyanna

This is why I, a person with a legit service dog, will confront a person with a fake service dog. But I guess most people in my situation would do so.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## mycobraracr

Cheyanna said:


> This is why I, a person with a legit service dog, will confront a person with a fake service dog. But I guess most people in my situation would do so.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Just out of curiosity, how do you know someone has a fake service dog?


----------



## SFGSSD

mycobraracr said:


> Just out of curiosity, how do you know someone has a fake service dog?


That is the real problem. With the way the law is written even with the challenge questions it is tough to know for sure. This is why I feel certification should be manditory.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Cheyanna

mycobraracr said:


> Just out of curiosity, how do you know someone has a fake service dog?


Dog is poorly behaved. If they freak out and bark like crazy when they see Fiona. In Ca there is an assistance tag issued by the county. If you don't have that...FAKE.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## mycobraracr

Cheyanna said:


> Dog is poorly behaved. If they freak out and bark like crazy when they see Fiona. In Ca there is an assistance tag issued by the county. If you don't have that...FAKE.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Yes if the dog is poorly trained. I don't think your tag reasoning works though. What if they are not from your county? They wouldn't have that special tag. I'm just saying you can't often tell a fake.


----------



## SFGSSD

Cheyanna said:


> Dog is poorly behaved. If they freak out and bark like crazy when they see Fiona. In Ca there is an assistance tag issued by the county. If you don't have that...FAKE.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


If the Feds issued that nation wide, it would cut down on a lot of issues with fakers. I am sure a liberal will chime in and say that the ADA does not require it bla bla bla But let's be honest here, the guessing game needs to stop. If you are not part of the solution talking, it is safe to say your part of the problem.

I applaud your county for taking some control over the situation. NY is a state that requires a SD license, yeah yeah yeah... Federal law trumps state law. But it is an attempt to regulate a real problem with Service Dogs. This should be embraced not criticized. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Cheyanna

It is state wide. You just get it from the county.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Lin

SFGSSD said:


> If the Feds issued that nation wide, it would cut down on a lot of issues with fakers. I am sure a liberal will chime in and say that the ADA does not require it bla bla bla But let's be honest here, the guessing game needs to stop. If you are not part of the solution talking, it is safe to say your part of the problem.


Political debates are not allowed here. 

And since federal law does not require any identification for a service dog, looking for a specific tag that a specific county/state offers to assistance dogs is not a solid way of determining if a dog is a legitimate service dog or not. In addition, most of the places that offer such tags do not have requirements to procur them and so fakers have them as well. Which leads into the big problem with people purchasing SD tags, IDs, certifications, and so forth and presenting them for public access without educating the business on SD laws, and resulting in problems for the next legitimate SD team which does not have the same tag, ID, or paperwork. Education cuts down on fakers as well as makes things smoother for the next legitimate team. Its important for everyone to remember they are representing all other SD teams when in public.


----------



## SFGSSD

Lin said:


> Political debates are not allowed here.
> 
> without educating the business on SD laws, and resulting in problems for the next legitimate SD team which does not have the same tag, ID, or paperwork. Education cuts down on fakers as well as makes things smoother for the next legitimate team. Its important for everyone to remember they are representing all other SD teams when in public.


Education for businesses Does Not cut down on fakers. The reality is that it causes businesses to fold and choose not to deal with it, allow all dogs and hope there is not a major issue.

This is not politics. This is reality. This is an opinion that you may not like but am entitled to, just like you are entitled to yours.

If someone "chooses" to identify their dog as a Service Dog by a vest, an ID, a certificate from the org they got the dog from, or however that is their choice and it is not against the law. What IS against the law is lying to obtain and use these things. 
I applaud you for having the time to educate people every 10 minutes. However people get service dogs for the independence as well as security by mitigating the disability and most do not feel that independence is exercised when they are stopped and must educate people. 




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## ILGHAUS

General warning to all ... be careful on personal comments.

"I applaud you for having the time to educate people every 10 minutes."
SFGSSD, Drop the snarky remarks.


----------



## SFGSSD

Attacking any org or business that sells or offers the following.

1. Service Dog Vests
2. Service Dog ID
3. Service Dog registration (NOT certification)
4. Service Dog patches

If you use ANY of these, and are attacking businesses and orgs that offer these products your being a Hippocratic. (and also violating a rule of this forum I believe) YES, none of it is required by Federal Law and if no identification is required, should you go out in public in no pet areas without this equipment? Legally you could, and is also your choice. You are also subjected to the added scrutiny you WILL receive time and time again for exercising your legal right to not use any of these products to identify your dog. You can do this and it is your choice.

If you don't want to be bothered as much and purchase or use these products for your legitimate service dog it is your choice as well. It is NOT illegal or a "scam" if they sell these products. 

What IS illegal and a "scam" is lying to obtain these products in accordance with the law. It is also against the law to use these products to impersonate a PWD to gain public access with a pet.




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Castlemaid

LOL, no rules against being Hippocratic. I sincerly hope that all SD dog providers do consider themselves Hippocratic: "First, do no harm".


----------



## Lin

Castlemaid said:


> LOL, no rules against being Hippocratic. I sincerly hope that all SD dog providers do consider themselves Hippocratic: "First, do no harm".


Hahahahaha :wub:


----------



## SFGSSD

The correct word is hypocrite, I apologize that you could not see through the auto-correct antics. 

Yes that was funny, but I will not be a hypocrite and cry/censor/threaten you for pointing out an obvious error/stating facts as you constantly do with me. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Lin

Not sure who you're replying to. Hippocratic may have been an autocorrect, but you're smart enough to know that slander against "liberals" is political, and to understand my heads up that political debates are against the forum rules.


----------



## Castlemaid

Honestly Terry, this is coming from an outsider with no vested interest in anything service dog organization, but a strong vested interest in keeping the discussions civil and constructive, many of your posts come off as paranoid rants with a good dose of underhanded attacks at any target within your reach. 

Please tone it down, and as you have been graciously warned to prevent editing or removing of your posts by an Admin, politics needs to be kept out of it, and as a gracious warning from an admin, constant bashing of everything and everyone also needs to be kept off the board.


----------



## Lin

SFGSSD said:


> Education for businesses Does Not cut down on fakers. The reality is that it causes businesses to fold and choose not to deal with it, allow all dogs and hope there is not a major issue.


Having personal experience on both sides, yes education cuts down on fakers. I've caught fakers. None of the businesses I've worked for folded, and none of the ones I've educated have either.


----------



## ILGHAUS

Lin said:


> Having personal experience on both sides, yes education cuts down on fakers. I've caught fakers. None of the businesses I've worked for folded, and none of the ones I've educated have either.


Keep up the good work Lin. 

Besides businesses, when the opportunity presents there is also a need for those with the chance to speak to and work with civic organizations along with government agencies. I've found they basically ask the same questions as business owners and often their members believe the same as any other individual in the community - sometimes confusing facts, opinions, and misconceptions spread by news articles and other forms of media.


----------



## SFGSSD

Lin, allow me to clarify, When I used the word "Fold" it did not mean they would go out of business. I meant that they would give up on challenging. As stated, even with the challenge questions, it is impossible to be certain one way or the other if the team is legitimate till something happens. Also, teams from ADI accredited organizations have been spotted with dogs, barking, eliminating, growling/showing teeth, and generally misbehaving. 
This is not paranoia. This is the truth. Truth be told that it is in fact impossible to identify a legitimate team the way the law stands today. Because their is no absolute, many businesses are put in a position that is in their best interest to not challenge, and deal with issues that may come up.

Also to clarify, the word "liberal" refers to a mindset and is not directed at any political party nor does politics have anything to do with that statement. Also it was not slanderous as nothing derogatory or untrue was stated. 

In regards to derogatory/slanderous. Statements about the USSDR and others that slants the truth is a clear violation of forum rules. 
They are NOT a scam they are not offering anything illegal. They are not offering fake "certification" or products at an unreasonable price. If they were, I would be all over them with the rest of you.

Unless they are offering a fake certification or selling products for unreasonable prices. They are doing nothing illegal and are being slandered unjustifiably. That is a clear violation of the rules of this forum is it not?






Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Sunflowers

SFGSSD said:


> That is the real problem. With the way the law is written even with the challenge questions it is tough to know for sure. This is why I feel certification should be manditory.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App





SFGSSD said:


> Attacking any org or business that sells or offers the following.
> 
> 1. Service Dog Vests
> 2. Service Dog ID
> 3. Service Dog registration (NOT certification)
> 4. Service Dog patches
> 
> If you use ANY of these, and are attacking businesses and orgs that offer these products your being a Hippocratic. (and also violating a rule of this forum I believe) YES, none of it is required by Federal Law and if no identification is required, should you go out in public in no pet areas without this equipment? Legally you could, and is also your choice. You are also subjected to the added scrutiny you WILL receive time and time again for exercising your legal right to not use any of these products to identify your dog. You can do this and it is your choice.
> 
> If you don't want to be bothered as much and purchase or use these products for your legitimate service dog it is your choice as well. It is NOT illegal or a "scam" if they sell these products.
> 
> What IS illegal and a "scam" is lying to obtain these products in accordance with the law. It is also against the law to use these products to impersonate a PWD to gain public access with a pet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


I am confused. Are you saying that anyone who puts a vest on their dog is impersonating a service animal?


----------



## SFGSSD

Sunflowers said:


> I am confused. Are you saying that anyone who puts a vest on their dog is impersonating a service animal?


No, I am saying that some will harp on the fact that any identification including the use of a vest to identify a service dog as a service dog is legally not required. This is true. However, there are a lot of PWD that use a vest to identify their dog as a service dog as it helps in regards to being constantly challenged. 

If you have a vest on your dog that says "service dog" but it is not a service dog by legal definition, you are impersonating being accompanied by a service dog. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Lin

SFGSSD said:


> No, I am saying that some will harp on the fact that any identification including the use of a vest to identify a service dog as a service dog is legally not required. This is true. However, there are a lot of PWD that use a vest to identify their dog as a service dog as it helps in regards to being constantly challenged.


No one has advised against wearing a vest to identify a dog as a service animal. My SD wears a custom set of saddle bags over her harness that display her SD patches. I frequently recommend that people use a vest with patches to identify their dog to ease public access, and you've responded to my posts where I've said it. However I would be doing a disservice if I gave only that side of the information, without also informing people that according to law no identification is necessary for a service animal working in public. That wearing a vest or other identification doesn't make a SD a SD and there are SDs working in public that do not wear special identification. That a SD handler who is out with their SD and needs to stop somewhere but does not have their vest with them are perfectly under the protection of the law to enter a store with a "naked" service dog. 

So yes, as a service dog handler representing SD teams and proud member of ADAP working to educate others about service dogs and service dog law I am going to "harp" out that information when I see it lacking. 

And no, I've never seen a business "fold" in that definition after education either. In fact what I've seen was the opposite, businesses that let just anyone through without questioning until after I educated them on what they could ask, what they could do to protect themselves, and what to look for. The businesses that were not interested in questioning a SD team to determine if they were legitimate or not were the ones that declined my offer to educate. This makes me very sad, because allowing in fakers with no questions does not help me as a service dog handler. When a faker comes in and their dog acts terribly, all eyes are going to be on the legitimate SD team that comes next. And probably the next one after that. And so forth.



SFGSSD said:


> Truth be told that it is in fact impossible to identify a legitimate team the way the law stands today. Because their is no absolute, many businesses are put in a position that is in their best interest to not challenge, and deal with issues that may come up.


As I've already stated, my personal experience has demonstrated that it is possible to identify legitimate and non legitimate SD teams as it stands today. Is it possible to identify EVERY illegitimate team? No. No one has ever claimed that. What has been said is that businesses need to be educated as to the law so they can use it to protect themselves and legitimate teams. 

If the law was to change tomorrow with a rock solid way to prevent fakers and protect SD teams, how exactly do you expect it to be put into use? Once the laws are changed for the better to help weed out the fakers and protect legitimate teams, I know how I will be planning to put it into use. Educating.


----------



## Lin

ILGHAUS said:


> Besides businesses, when the opportunity presents there is also a need for those with the chance to speak to and work with civic organizations along with government agencies. I've found they basically ask the same questions as business owners and often their members believe the same as any other individual in the community - sometimes confusing facts, opinions, and misconceptions spread by news articles and other forms of media.


Great point. One of the areas I see very lacking for example is people not knowing that government buildings are not handled under the ADA, but section 504 of the rehab act. Many handlers even do not understand this difference, or the difference in types of housing, as well as designations between public and private.


----------



## martemchik

The problem as it stands today is there is no point in certification.

If a true SD bites someone in a store, they have the same liability as a fake SD that bites someone in a store. The fake SD might have another ticket for "impersonating an SD" but it will be nothing compared to the A "certified" dog would probably be more liable because the certifying agency would probably be sued as well and so some of that liability is just shifted to them. When you can sue a large business, rather than a single person, you always do that since the business has much more income and probably a bigger checking account.

In this case...if you do have a "certifying agency" that chooses not to accept any liability...what's the point of the certification?

The truth is...I don't see a problem with the current system. I actually don't see enough SDs in order to even think its an issue. I've only seen 1 SD in the past year in a store and it was definitely a real SD. I don't think I've ever seen any kind of misbehavior of a dog in a store as I don't know that many people that NEED to bring their dog into a store so bad that they are willing to risk the chance that someone will figure out their misbehaving dog isn't really an SD and then call the police.


----------



## Chicagocanine

SFGSSD said:


> In regards to derogatory/slanderous. Statements about the USSDR and others that slants the truth is a clear violation of forum rules.
> They are NOT a scam they are not offering anything illegal. They are not offering fake "certification" or products at an unreasonable price. If they were, I would be all over them with the rest of you.
> 
> Unless they are offering a fake certification or selling products for unreasonable prices. They are doing nothing illegal and are being slandered unjustifiably. That is a clear violation of the rules of this forum is it not?
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Personally I think charging $50-90 for an "Official Service Dog Badge" is rather high and calling it "official" is misleading at best.


----------



## martemchik

Chicagocanine said:


> Personally I think charging $50-90 for an "Official Service Dog Badge" is rather high and calling it "official" is misleading at best.


I didn't check or see the cost, but if they then take on some liability for the dog they certify...$50-$90 might be very well worth it.

I equate it to TDi...they certify therapy dogs. Most places I've gone to with my dog could care less about the certification. The government doesn't care about the certification, but for $40 they insure you against small claims up to $1,000,000 I believe. So that is very well worth the price IMO (even though I don't have a TDi certification).

If they're just charging you $50 for a tag and some other stuff, its useless. The way the law is written (and will continue to be written), the only reason I see needing to certify is to place liability onto someone else. I'm sure that most of the SD handlers on this forum have liability and umbrella policies for their dogs...but it would be much better for their wallets if any claim made was against another policy holder rather than themselves.


----------



## Chicagocanine

As far as I can tell from the info on the site, all you are getting for between about $50-90 is a card with the dog's info and the ADA laws on the back. It doesn't say anything about certification or liability and definitely no mention of insurance.
This is the page: What?s Next? - Service Dog Registration Of America

I also find the whole site misleading as they barely mention anywhere that a service dog must be *trained*. They just talk about taking your dog everywhere, and then there's a tiny bit buried in the FAQ about businesses saying that dogs should be well behaved and trained (no mention that I could find of task training or helping a handler with a disability). On the main page it doesn't say anything about this at all, about what a service dog is or who might qualify for one.


----------



## SFGSSD

You guys are basically confirming my argument for me.

1. Certification (real) offers confirmation that the dog has indeed been trained to mitigate the disability and perform in public without likelihood of risk to person or property. Without it, let's be honest, your guess (within legal parameters) is as good as mine.
(Some may not reside in an area that SD's are common but it does not justify the "no need for certification")
2. Liability insurance for certification is something that is being worked on by SDS

What these folks are charging I would not say is "unreasonable" but a little on the high side. What I have seen that is unreasonable is the ones charging 200 300 even 500 for these items and or fake certification. The wording as you pointed out is a bit omitted but then again they are registering the dog not certifying it. The word "official" can be taken the wrong way. Fact it that it "officially" just comes from them nothing more. 

My question for everyone is, what do you feel will work to prevent fraud, confirm the dog is trained, while adding security (less likelihood of) damage to person or property?

Before you answer, please google "service dog bite" and "service dog attack" and "service dog causes damage" to get an idea of how well our system is working now.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## martemchik

I just don't know if the cost will justify the benefit. I know there are attacks, but recently there's been an uptick of emotional support dogs which pretty much toe the line between pet and service animal. I've heard of many attacks when it comes to those, and yet none of them are local.

I've discussed this with the other members that have chimed in on this thread and it seems to me that the increased cost and "hoopjumping" would really diminish the ability for many PWDs from being able to have a service dog. Even those people that do understand what to do, how to train, ect, would probably have an issue getting a dog certified (depending on the certification requirements). When it comes to figuring out certification requirements...who's going to do that? Half will cry that they're too hard, the other half will cry that they are too easy and that who ever implemented them hasn't gone far enough...

I'm all for some sort of legislation, but I can't imagine what it would say in order to prevent the abusers but not make it too restrictive for people that actually need the dogs.


----------



## Andaka

martemchik said:


> I just don't know if the cost will justify the benefit. I know there are attacks, but recently there's been an uptick of emotional support dogs which pretty much toe the line between pet and service animal. I've heard of many attacks when it comes to those, and yet none of them are local.
> 
> I've discussed this with the other members that have chimed in on this thread and it seems to me that the increased cost and "hoopjumping" would really diminish the ability for many PWDs from being able to have a service dog. Even those people that do understand what to do, how to train, ect, would probably have an issue getting a dog certified (depending on the certification requirements). When it comes to figuring out certification requirements...who's going to do that? Half will cry that they're too hard, the other half will cry that they are too easy and that who ever implemented them hasn't gone far enough...
> 
> I'm all for some sort of legislation, but I can't imagine what it would say in order to prevent the abusers but not make it too restrictive for people that actually need the dogs.


This is it in a nutshell.


----------



## Blanketback

SFGSSD said:


> My question for everyone is, what do you feel will work to prevent fraud, confirm the dog is trained, while adding security (less likelihood of) damage to person or property?
> http://www.petguide.com/mobile


Those are very good questions, but not easily answered. I did google "service dog bite", as you suggested, and it's pretty bad, isn't it? I suppose your last question, regarding preventing damage, could easily be taken care of with a basket muzzle. But that's not saying much as far as training goes, lol! 

I also attempted to find the figures for actual convictions re: impersonating a Service Dog, but I didn't have any luck. The threat of a fine and/or imprisonment might be just that? I don't think people realize the actual seriousness, and consequences, when they're passing off their pets as SDs. 

I don't like the idea of having the "real" SD teams having to prove themselves. I think a better way to go about it would be to have the "fakers" putting themselves on the line. How about this: most places require a dog license. What if Service Dogs were exempt from the fees, and their tags were unique, prominent and easily identifiable. To obtain this designated tag, the owner would be required to sign a document confirming their dog as a SD. They would be declaring the dog as a SD, and be advised of the consequences for impersonating at that time. How many fakers would actually do that? I'm sure that would cut down on them considerably.


----------



## Cheyanna

Blanketback said:


> I don't like the idea of having the "real" SD teams having to prove themselves. I think a better way to go about it would be to have the "fakers" putting themselves on the line. How about this: most places require a dog license. What if Service Dogs were exempt from the fees, and their tags were unique, prominent and easily identifiable. To obtain this designated tag, the owner would be required to sign a document confirming their dog as a SD. They would be declaring the dog as a SD, and be advised of the consequences for impersonating at that time. How many fakers would actually do that? I'm sure that would cut down on them considerably.


That is exactly what the state of California did. My license is from the state, but issued by the county. It was free and I had to certify she was a SD under penalties of perjury, a felony. I have doctors' notes to back up the license. I think more states should do this. My trainer was the one who told me about it, so most people with fake SD would not know to go look for it.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Blanketback

Way to go California. I'm sure that the "felony" part has dissuaded more than a few fakers, lol!


----------



## x11

we have to have laws to stop people pretending to have disabilities!!!

can humans stoop much lower?


----------



## SFGSSD

NY did the same thing.

Here are the problems.

1. Federal law will be argued.

2. They do not confirm training.

3. There is no real accountability.

Yes schools give a certificate/vest that identifies the dog (this is good) but there is NO real accountability from a "official" governing body. (Some will even complain that faculty trained dogs get a vest and ID as it is not required by federal law, then do not want to prove anything on regards to their service dog (go figure)

Truth is that the way the law stands, there are more ways to spin things than you can shake a stick at. This is the real problem and what needs to be changed. 

The problem is not just with fakers, it is with legitimately disabled people with illegitimate dogs. 




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## x11

the older i get the more paranoid and anxious i get in crowds, can i get a disability service vest for my dog cos he makes me feel more secure in public and get tax breaks on his medical and food costs???

and get better seats in restaurants


----------



## Lin

martemchik said:


> I just don't know if the cost will justify the benefit. I know there are attacks, but recently there's been an uptick of emotional support dogs which pretty much toe the line between pet and service animal. I've heard of many attacks when it comes to those, and yet none of them are local.


ESA's don't really "toe the line" as they have their completely own designations and laws. They are NOT included in service animals. They are not allowed in public places, only in non pet housing thats covered under the housing act as well as airplanes. 



> I've discussed this with the other members that have chimed in on this thread and it seems to me that the increased cost and "hoopjumping" would really diminish the ability for many PWDs from being able to have a service dog. Even those people that do understand what to do, how to train, ect, would probably have an issue getting a dog certified (depending on the certification requirements). When it comes to figuring out certification requirements...who's going to do that? Half will cry that they're too hard, the other half will cry that they are too easy and that who ever implemented them hasn't gone far enough...


Correct, some sort of federally recognized and implemented certification would be great, but there are currently too many problems to solve. Many of them being financial. Who pays for the certification? Do the disabled who need the service dogs? Is it paid for by taxes? How many certification places where there be, and who covers transportation of the PWD and SD to the closest place? Again is it the PWD, or taxes? As of yet no realistic solutions to these and the other problems has been found. 


Blanketback said:


> Those are very good questions, but not easily answered. I did google "service dog bite", as you suggested, and it's pretty bad, isn't it? I suppose your last question, regarding preventing damage, could easily be taken care of with a basket muzzle. But that's not saying much as far as training goes, lol!


I know you weren't being serious, but that would definitely not be a solution since a SD needs its mouth to perform many tasks! 



> I also attempted to find the figures for actual convictions re: impersonating a Service Dog, but I didn't have any luck. The threat of a fine and/or imprisonment might be just that? I don't think people realize the actual seriousness, and consequences, when they're passing off their pets as SDs.
> 
> I don't like the idea of having the "real" SD teams having to prove themselves. I think a better way to go about it would be to have the "fakers" putting themselves on the line. How about this: most places require a dog license. What if Service Dogs were exempt from the fees, and their tags were unique, prominent and easily identifiable. To obtain this designated tag, the owner would be required to sign a document confirming their dog as a SD. They would be declaring the dog as a SD, and be advised of the consequences for impersonating at that time. How many fakers would actually do that? I'm sure that would cut down on them considerably.


There are criminal laws in some areas for passing off a non SD as a SD, and people can be charged with fraud. Everywhere else it must be handled in civil court as the laws addressing SDs are civil law. Which basically means it takes someone to sue, as opposed to the state handling it. A business or individual can sue if they don't believe the dog was a SD, or if the dog caused problems. In court the judge will determine if the individual does meet the legal definition of disabled and if the dog is in fact a SD. 

And actually there are quite a lot of fakers who have purchased such things. I've seen it in instances with local SD licenses, as well as purchasing online certifications. In one instance they had purchased the online certification, but didn't know that it didn't protect them from getting into trouble by attempting to pass of their dogs as SDs. Furthermore the fakers can be broken down into those who are intentionally faking their dogs as SDs and know it, and those who honestly think their dog is a SD and they can take it wherever they want. Of this group some of them can be helped with education and finding out what they need to do to try to make their dog an actual SD, and others will just argue with you that fluffy IS a SD and they have the right to take him everywhere. These are typically the ones you see that pop up in the news when they were denied access somewhere, and they believe their rights were violated and so contacted the media.


x11 said:


> the older i get the more paranoid and anxious i get in crowds, can i get a disability service vest for my dog cos he makes me feel more secure in public and get tax breaks on his medical and food costs???
> 
> and get better seats in restaurants


If you meet the legal definition of disability (not just medical, not just a Dr considering you disabled) and your dog meets the requirements of training in advanced obedience, public access, and service tasks yes you may take your dog into public and get tax breaks on his medical and food costs. If any of the above is not true and you try it, you're liable to be sued or have criminal charges pressed. Especially if you go the tax break route, then you're opening yourself up for tax fraud. 

You won't get better seats in restaurants though, most cases you won't be seated any differently than if you didn't have the dog, and in other cases you'll be seated way far off in the corner and possibly forgotten about by your server as a result. I've had to walk out of a restaurant and go somewhere else to eat because the server briefly checked on us when we arrived, and then forgot about us for nearly 20 minutes. Not sure how long it took her to realize we got up and left. 

Legal definition of disability:
ADA Sec 902 Definition of Disability
ADAAA See Sec. 4


----------



## Cheyanna

x11 said:


> the older i get the more paranoid and anxious i get in crowds, can i get a disability service vest for my dog cos he makes me feel more secure in public and get tax breaks on his medical and food costs???
> 
> and get better seats in restaurants


I don't get better seats. Sometimes I get crappy seats, but don't want to make a big deal.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## x11

from the link, i did not read whole, lengthy document. 

seems like there is no medical proof required to have a disability so it seems impossible to fake if you say yr not faking it? interesting, again i did not read whole document nor am i a lawyer.

Statutory Definition -- With respect to an individual, the term "disability" means
(A) a physical or mental impairment that *substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such*
individual;
(B) *a record* of such an impairment; or​(C) *being regarded* as having such an impairment.


----------



## Chicagocanine

I live in the 3rd largest city in the US but rarely see service dogs around (not counting my BIL's dog who i see often). I've never run into a non well behaved one either. I always notice if there are dogs around being a "dog person" so I don't think that I'm just not noticing.



Lin said:


> If you meet the legal definition of disability (not just medical, not just a Dr considering you disabled) and your dog meets the requirements of training in advanced obedience, public access, and service tasks yes you may take your dog into public and get tax breaks on his medical and food costs. If any of the above is not true and you try it, you're liable to be sued or have criminal charges pressed. Especially if you go the tax break route, then you're opening yourself up for tax fraud.


So how does someone know/prove if they meet this designation, if consulting a doctor is not adequate, and how do they prove someone with a dog in public is or is not meeting this definition and thus legally allowed to have a service dog? Who is responsible for checking and deciding this? The courts only if there is some sort of legal issues, or what?




Cheyanna said:


> That is exactly what the state of California did. My license is from the state, but issued by the county. It was free and I had to certify she was a SD under penalties of perjury, a felony. I have doctors' notes to back up the license. I think more states should do this. My trainer was the one who told me about it, so most people with fake SD would not know to go look for it.


Yes but technically service dogs are not required to have that license to be in public, am I correct (ADA law not requiring tags, the least restrictive law applies yes?) So just because a dog is in CA and does not have one of those tags does not mean they are not a "real" service dog (task trained and accompanying a person to mitigate their disability).
Also haven't there been issues in CA with dogs getting the tag that don't really qualify? I thought I'd read about SF in particular having problems with a lot of ESAs being in public.


----------



## Lin

x11 said:


> from the link, i did not read whole, lengthy document.
> 
> seems like there is no medical proof required to have a disability so it seems impossible to fake if you say yr not faking it? interesting, again i did not read whole document nor am i a lawyer.
> 
> Statutory Definition -- With respect to an individual, the term "disability" means
> (A) a physical or mental impairment that *substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such*
> individual;
> (B) *a record* of such an impairment; or​(C) *being regarded* as having such an impairment.


Medical proof is required. If you or your SD are in doubt and end up in court you'll have to prove to the judge that you meet the legal (which is more in depth and has specific requirements to meet as opposed to just a medical opinion that you're disabled) definition of disability, and your dog meets the definition of service dog. Medical records will come in to play as well as the dogs training log, and demonstrating to the judge the dog's training. This is why its incredibly important for owner trainers to keep a detailed training log to prove their dogs training if it comes under question. 

I stress meeting the legal definition of disability because of the stricter requirements than a medical definition of disability. Its a step further, not a step behind. Having a Dr say you're disabled or write a letter that you're disabled isn't enough if you don't meet the legal definition, which as you noticed is quite lengthy. Anyone considering a service dog should read it in its entirety. If you go through a reputable training organization to procur a service dog, they will evaluate if you fit the legal definition of disability.


----------



## Blanketback

Lin, I'm glad you knew I wasn't being serious. What a foolish thing to say, otherwise!
That's really unfortunate the way the law is set up. Is that why I can't find the conviction rate? It should be treated differently. Impersonating a Service Dog should be right up there with impersonating a Police Officer - how many people would do that?! I really don't think people understand the implications, and how much damage they're doing, when they flaunt the law like this. 

For example: if I was in a department store and I heard a dog barking, I would rush 
right over to where the sound was coming from, because I would automatically assume it was a SD alerting. I'd be more than a little angry if it was someone's pet dog reacting to something needlessly. 

Terry, I get what you're saying about fakers vs illegitimate SDs. But I'm lumping them in the same boat. Just because someone has a defined disability, as well as being a dog owner, that doesn't automatically make them a SD team.


----------



## Lin

Chicagocanine said:


> I live in the 3rd largest city in the US but rarely see service dogs around (not counting my BIL's dog who i see often). I've never run into a non well behaved one either. I always notice if there are dogs around being a "dog person" so I don't think that I'm just not noticing.
> 
> 
> So how does someone know/prove if they meet this designation, if consulting a doctor is not adequate, and how do they prove someone with a dog in public is or is not meeting this definition and thus legally allowed to have a service dog? Who is responsible for checking and deciding this? The courts only if there is some sort of legal issues, or what?


That doesn't surprise me, I'm in the largest city in my state but I've never run into another legitimate SD handler, only fakers myself. 

Like I said in my previous post, anyone considering a service dog should read the legal definition of disability in full in my opinion, especially approaching owner training. If they're going through a reputable training organization the organization will go over with them if they meet the requirements. The definition can be discussed with relevant Drs. 

When talking about proving someone with a dog in public being legimate, you're back onto a completely separate topic. x11 asked if they could put a vest on their dog and call it a service dog and start taking it in public and requesting tax deductions. The answer to that question depends on if x11 meets the legal definition of disability, and if their dog meets the definition of service dog. 

As far as who is responsible for checking things, thats multiform. In x11's case, if they were honestly considering going the owner trainer route they are the first ones responsible and thus should be very familiar with the law to ensure they're meeting the proper definitions. In the case of a program dog, the program has a responsibility to ensure they are only accepting legally disabled individuals and putting out dogs that meet the legal definition of service dog. Once you venture into public, the business also has a responsibility to protect themselves by knowing the law and what they can or cannot ask, things to look for, and what they can or cannot do to protect themselves. They can ask if the dog is a service dog, and what kind of service dog it is and what tasks it performs. They cannot ask the individual what their disability is. If the dog is misbehaving, causing a disturbance, or of improper grooming they make ask the dog to leave and it does not matter if the dog is a legitimate SD or not at that point. If they feel when questioning the handler that the dog is not a legitimate SD they may deny access. If the individual sues as a result of denied access, they will have to prove to the judge that they meet the legal definition of disability and that their dog meets the legal definition of service dog. If a business decides to sue on the basis of believing a dog that entered their business was not a service dog the individual will again need to prove to the judge that they are disabled and that their dog is a service dog. If the judge deems either of these things false, thats the end of the line except for the case of appeals. In one case from a while back a woman who was most likely legally disabled but by mental illness ended up in court claiming an animal her service animal for another reason, and as a result of the judge deeming her NOT disabled is now unable to have a service animal period. 

All of the ADA is civil law, not criminal law. Criminal law is handled by the police and prosecuted by the state. Civil law breaking is considered a civil dispute and is handled by lawyers for the plaintiff and defendant. Any access issue under the ADA is thus handled in civil court. Some states do have additional law though that allows individuals to be prosecuted for things such as fraud when faking a service dog. 




> Yes but technically service dogs are not required to have that license to be in public, am I correct (ADA law not requiring tags, the least restrictive law applies yes?) So just because a dog is in CA and does not have one of those tags does not mean they are not a "real" service dog (task trained and accompanying a person to mitigate their disability).
> Also haven't there been issues in CA with dogs getting the tag that don't really qualify? I thought I'd read about SF in particular having problems with a lot of ESAs being in public.


Correct that the federal law does not require license to be in public. And state law cannot restrict civil rights that are given by federal law, so no state law can require such a license for public access. 

However there are certain cases where one may be required. For example, SDITs are not covered under federal law. If a given state gives SDITs the same public access designation as SDs but requires a license or orange vest to be worn at all times to get this, an individual could not claim the added protection of the state law but then fall back onto federal law and claim their dog does not need to be wearing anything.


----------



## Lin

Blanketback said:


> Lin, I'm glad you knew I wasn't being serious. What a foolish thing to say, otherwise!
> That's really unfortunate the way the law is set up. Is that why I can't find the conviction rate? It should be treated differently. Impersonating a Service Dog should be right up there with impersonating a Police Officer - how many people would do that?! I really don't think people understand the implications, and how much damage they're doing, when they flaunt the law like this.


I would love to see some criminal statutes put out for faking SDs. I do think that would greatly curb things. Its incredibly time consuming and difficult to lobby for laws though, so would take a LOT of work to make this widespread. ADAP has been working for quite a while now for a law that will cut down on the fake online certifications, but run into many problems.


----------



## SFGSSD

Lin, 
Your statement about the dog being trained is not exactly accurate. According to Federal law "The dog must be trained to mitigate the disability." This is the ONLY thing stated directly about "Training". 

As for who pays for it? Dogs that are provided at no cost come from donations NOT from taxes. What would make sense is to allocate some donation funding to certify the dog. 
Not everyone can travel to a convenient location to get this done. Those PWD need to be reasonably accommodated and should be. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Cheyanna

Ca does have a law. If I am faking my SD, it is a felony. It is a misdemeanor for a person to interfere with me and my SD.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## SFGSSD

Cheyanna said:


> Ca does have a law. If I am faking my SD, it is a felony. It is a misdemeanor for a person to interfere with me and my SD.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Don't get me wrong, the law is great but there is no realistic standard of training that is backed by federal law. All it says is the dog must be trained to mitigate the disability. No further "training" is mentioned. They state that the dog MAY be asked to leave it it is misbehaving. But do not mention that it is a requirement for the dog to be trained to behave in a certain way.

It's a step in the right direction though. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## x11

the complexity of the posts here indicate to me that the system is either broken or unworkable or both.

fyi, i am not considering training my own sd, i posed it as a rhetorical question to stimulate/clarify debate.


----------



## SFGSSD

x11 said:


> the complexity of the posts here indicate to me that the system is either broken or unworkable or both.


That is correct! There are to many "grey areas" and the law does not make it more black and white in a way that truly helps everyone. Because of this, fakers are getting away with it, illegitimate SD's are ignored, big facilities that put out bad dogs are not exposed and held accountable, inexperienced owner trainers are taking reactive dogs in public, businesses throw up there hands and DO NOT want to deal with it for fear of being wrong and subjecting themselves to a law suit, the list goes on and on. 
There is a better way on the horizon. It will not be a "Law" but it will fix enough of the issues that will attract the support of the majority.. JQP as well as PWD.



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## martemchik

SFGSSD said:


> As for who pays for it? Dogs that are provided at no cost come from donations NOT from taxes. What would make sense is to allocate some donation funding to certify the dog.
> Not everyone can travel to a convenient location to get this done. Those PWD need to be reasonably accommodated and should be.


What about those that train their own dogs? Or are we supposed to start relying on strictly organization provided dogs?

I know you run an organization for service dogs, so you push it, but its completely ridiculous to expect organizations to provide all the service dogs America needs. Then what happens when you need another one because your dog gets old? Move to the back of the line and wait for one? Do you have a "needs based" system or is it first come first serve? How do you gauge how badly someone needs a dog more than someone else?

Sorry...that won't work. I'm in complete support that people should be able to train their own dogs and not be at the whim of another bureaucracy that will just slow everything down and probably cause more problems due to waiting times and more politics being involved. On top of that you're relying on outside donations in order to provide the dogs...I'll assume that leads to a limited supply which always leads to a black market or sub-standard organizations popping up that will "follow" government regulations which are always set way too low.

No new laws are necessary...we don't need everything on this earth to be a felony. As much as I think that impersonating a service dog team is wrong...there are many much worse things out there someone can do and its only a misdemeanor or a slap on the wrist. Sometimes I feel like there are laws in this country that are completely out of whack when it comes to penalties.


----------



## SFGSSD

martemchik said:


> What about those that train their own dogs? Or are we supposed to start relying on strictly organization provided dogs?.


Unlike ADI, SDS oversees and monitors facilities that produce a top quality product ONLY We will NOT allow sub standard to be part of SDS... so no worries about "sub standard" there. Also, SDS supports owner trainers as well that have the ability to train their own dog. The way this is coming along with SDS, the only ones that will have complaints are the facilities and owner trainers that don't have a good enough dog in public and they know it. 



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## martemchik

SFGSSD said:


> Unlike ADI, SDS oversees and monitors facilities that produce a top quality product ONLY We will NOT allow sub standard to be part of SDS... so no worries about "sub standard" there. Also, SDS supports owner trainers as well that have the ability to train their own dog. The way this is coming along with SDS, the only ones that will have complaints are the facilities and owner trainers that don't have a good enough dog in public and they know it.


And SDS is supposed to become the standard for certifying dogs? WHY?!?!?! Listen, its awesome that you believe in this program, but to take it to a national level? What do you do with all the schools already in place? It's fine if YOU don't allow sub-standard facilities, but YOU don't run the government. And the government should never put a private organization in charge of any type of official licensing IMO, just leads to too many angry people that are forced to follow rules they have absolutely ZERO say on.

Just read your website...sounds wonderful...but its still a volunteer join organization, and the government should keep it that way. No offense to you, but if the government puts any bearing on what it is that your organization does, its going to start forcing a lot on people...and they won't be happy about it. I also wouldn't be surprised to see the organization in court to explain itself/mission/activities if anything is ever made necessary instead of just optional. Your heart is definitely in the right place, but unless I trust you 100% and agree with you 100% (which I don't on all things) I wouldn't really want you setting standards and requirements for ALL SDs. Just look at this thread...you can't agree with 2 of the people that have SDs and you expect YOUR way to be pushed on everyone?

I guess my point is...keep fighting for it...but sorry, in this country we really don't like private citizens telling us what to do. We don't even like the government telling us what to do, so these types of "self-policing" organizations are hard to start up without government backing or acceptance (and this is coming from an accountant).


----------



## SFGSSD

martemchik said:


> And SDS is supposed to become the standard for certifying dogs? WHY?!?!?! Listen, its awesome that you believe in this program, but to take it to a national level? What do you do with all the schools already in place? It's fine if YOU don't allow sub-standard facilities, but YOU don't run the government. And the government should never put a private organization in charge of any type of official licensing IMO, just leads to too many angry people that are forced to follow rules they have absolutely ZERO say on.
> 
> Just read your website...sounds wonderful...but its still a volunteer join organization, and the government should keep it that way. No offense to you, but if the government puts any bearing on what it is that your organization does, its going to start forcing a lot on people...and they won't be happy about it. I also wouldn't be surprised to see the organization in court to explain itself/mission/activities if anything is ever made necessary instead of just optional. Your heart is definitely in the right place, but unless I trust you 100% and agree with you 100% (which I don't on all things) I wouldn't really want you setting standards and requirements for ALL SDs. Just look at this thread...you can't agree with 2 of the people that have SDs and you expect YOUR way to be pushed on everyone?
> 
> I guess my point is...keep fighting for it...but sorry, in this country we really don't like private citizens telling us what to do. We don't even like the government telling us what to do, so these types of "self-policing" organizations are hard to start up without government backing or acceptance (and this is coming from an accountant).


It will be a working model when fully launched and yes,members are not forced to be part of SDS. This code is not dictated by ME, it is a joint effort. 

You do not need to trust me or anyone, looking at history in general, I don't blame you for being skeptical, but this is not a forum to judge a program that is not launched yet.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## martemchik

SFGSSD said:


> It will be a working model when fully launched and yes,members are not forced to be part of SDS. This code is not dictated by ME, it is a joint effort.
> 
> You do not need to trust me or anyone, looking at history in general, I don't blame you for being skeptical, but this is not a forum to judge a program that is not launched yet.


Oh I'm not judging the program...I think its a wonderful idea. Its the implementation I would worry about. Anytime a small sample of people get together to implement something, politics get involved and that's never a good thing. I'm part of the local GSD club...and we can't keep politics and our own agendas out of that, and we have like 300 members (most of which could care less about the breed and just want to train their dog).

I'm usually not one to care a lot about my "rights" getting taken away...but I do think there are somethings that government and other private citizens should just keep their noses out of. SDs are probably one of those things...they're not THAT dangerous. I know you told us to google "service dog attack" but I can google pretty much any "xxxx attack" and I'll get a hit.

I've never really believed in the "slippery slope" idea...but I'm kind of starting to. Regulate this, regulate that, who knows what happens next?


----------



## SFGSSD

martemchik said:


> Oh I'm not judging the program...I think its a wonderful idea. Its the implementation I would worry about. Anytime a small sample of people get together to implement something, politics get involved and that's never a good thing. I'm part of the local GSD club...and we can't keep politics and our own agendas out of that, and we have like 300 members (most of which could care less about the breed and just want to train their dog).
> 
> I'm usually not one to care a lot about my "rights" getting taken away...but I do think there are somethings that government and other private citizens should just keep their noses out of. SDs are probably one of those things...they're not THAT dangerous. I know you told us to google "service dog attack" but I can google pretty much any "xxxx attack" and I'll get a hit.
> 
> I've never really believed in the "slippery slope" idea...but I'm kind of starting to. Regulate this, regulate that, who knows what happens next?


I hear you. Politics are a problem, even within this forum, as politics are exercised in a variety of ways. 

If anything, the public will eventually be at ease and confident with a service dog that is backed by SDS. Our goal is not only to make sure the PWD is getting a top quality product, but also to make sure these dogs are bullet proof in public, and easily identified without the handler having to stop and answer questions. 
Don't ask how, I am not at liberty to disclose that at this time. When the code is finalized and published, everything will be disclosed at that time.
But I will say that the plan of initial launch will start with a few states as a working test model and expand from there.



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Blanketback

martemchik said:


> No new laws are necessary...we don't need everything on this earth to be a felony. As much as I think that impersonating a service dog team is wrong...there are many much worse things out there someone can do and its only a misdemeanor or a slap on the wrist. Sometimes I feel like there are laws in this country that are completely out of whack when it comes to penalties.


Impersonating a SD team isn't "wrong" it's reprehensible. Try putting yourself in their situation. Walk around blindfolded for a week, or bind one of your arms or legs, and consider what incredible challenges some people have to live with. New laws? I don't even know what the actual laws are, but by how Lin described their enforcement, it doesn't sound like they're enforced very often. Which is probably why there're so many fakers. Like it or not, our society has become very dishonest and I don't see how to change that unless the consequences for this dishonesty are harsh, and actually mean something.


----------



## martemchik

Blanketback said:


> Impersonating a SD team isn't "wrong" it's reprehensible. Try putting yourself in their situation. Walk around blindfolded for a week, or bind one of your arms or legs, and consider what incredible challenges some people have to live with. New laws? I don't even know what the actual laws are, but by how Lin described their enforcement, it doesn't sound like they're enforced very often. Which is probably why there're so many fakers. Like it or not, our society has become very dishonest and I don't see how to change that unless the consequences for this dishonesty are harsh, and actually mean something.


The current laws are written in order to protect REAL teams from discrimination. They pretty much lay out how a person with an SD should be treated in order to not step on any toes and not get charged with a discrimination suit BY THE PWD. Sadly...actual PWDs are the ones that had a large influence on the law and that's why its so easy to impersonate an SD team. But like I've said...I don't see it. I live in a fairly large city, and I used to live in Chicago, and I've seen maybe 5 SD teams in my life. If you have a well behaved dog (I'm talking seriously well behaved) you should have no issue walking into a store with it...the risk for the store is much greater if they question a REAL team than if they question a FAKE team.

A real team could throw the book at them, give them a bunch of bad press, probably go to court, at a minimum call the police and probably have a citation written. A fake team...they just walk about, maybe try to throw the laws at them, but at the end, a phone call to the police will still scare most people away. If they are that group that "think" they have a real SD but the law doesn't. They might argue, but a police officer's explanation and possibly a citation (I'm sure they can find something to write a ticket about) would probably get them to stop or at least slow down their taking the dog inside.

Maybe for others its different, but I don't see that big of a problem with people impersonating SD teams. So any kind of legislation is just a waste of time, and will probably make a bigger headache for the real teams.


----------



## JustJim

SFGSSD, you say we shouldn't "judge a program that is not launched yet" but there is enough information out there to make preliminary judgements.

The SDS Project won't disclose or discuss what is going into the code, or the discussions behind that. You say it won't be "law" but on their website the SDS indicates they are seeing the to-be-proposed code as desirable for adoption as legal standards for certification:


> Much like the electric code, UL and other building standards… a code is usually created by an industry group. Law makers are the ones that adopt that standard, and create laws mandating the use of a specific standard. So long as the industry is updating the underlying standard, it keeps the law makers from creating the specific rules.


(quote from SDSchools An Open Letter ) It wouldn't be "law," but the goal is for it to become the regulatory standard for law; not a great deal of difference there. Not acknowledging that intent is a bit disingenuous at best. 

You describe those who aren't "part of the solution talking" as being the problem--but the SDS effectively excludes many, if not most, handlers (as well as professionals in related fields) from participating in that "solution talking," making everyone else "part of the problem."


> Membership is open to all service dog trainers and organizations that are *legally registered* in their state/country.


 (emphasis mine, quote from sdschools.org/index.php/about-us/ ) Many jurisdictions have no requirement, or even a mechanism, for the required "legal registration." 

If we don't agree with the "code" you and your friends are developing (when it is eventually released), you say we "don't have a good enough dog in public and . . . know it." I'm really not sure what that is based on, but the statement is strongly suggestive that no matter what is claimed now by the SDS Project, the code will be designed to exclude dogs not trained by the members of the SDS Project. 

People who dare to question the code, the need for the code, or the people behind the development of the code, are subject to attacks and arguments from the SDS Project's sole representative on the forum. It makes it difficult to see the SDS Project as intended to be beneficial for anyone other than the member organizations. 

It is quite possible I'm misunderstanding things here; I can only look at the available information. But that available information suggests that there is cause for concern. I can't see any reason to support the SDS Project, and some good reasons to actively oppose it.


----------



## SFGSSD

JustJim,

Your being very presumptuous. When the code is published it would be fair at that point to critique or support. 

Rest assured that the people involved with the SDS project are not ignorant to the functions of working dogs in a training and handling capacity. This includes professionals as well as owner trainers. Like the 40 or so dog trainers you can find at any given dog park you have a right to your opinion. And if you feel it is just to critique a program without seing the code, so be it.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## JustJim

Um, I wasn't criticizing the code, but rather, the SDS Project (as you note, the code has yet to be disclosed). As I wrote, I can only look at the available information. But there is adequate cause for concern in the information available about the project, and the project can be criticized based on that information. 

Lack of transparency is a major issue. The code, or drafts of the code, have not been released. If a group is seeking a to develop a code of conduct, or professional standards for use within that group, there is nothing wrong with this. 

When the group is seeking to promote this code as a standard applying to others with the force of law, it becomes another matter. The goal of the Project has been stated in one place on their website to be a voluntary code of standards for members, in another as a standard for lawmakers to use to regulate the training of service dogs. Which is it?

Membership is restricted, seemingly to those with a vested financial interest in controlling certification. The clause requiring "legal registration" for membership has been previously mentioned. There is a statement on the membership page saying, "If you would like to add your *program *to help draft and adopt the SD Code for your *organization* please send an email." In the "Open Letter" from Ken Lyons, he states, ". . . I’m the director for a small service dog school in Florida, *a few small schools and myself* are tackling this issue by helping to create a uniform Service Dog Code. . . " All this suggests that membership is NOT open to anyone not a professional dog trainer, or not affiliated with a professional dog training program. 

This may well be an incorrect conclusion on my part, I only have the information on the website to go on. I'd welcome being shown that I have come to an incorrect conclusion. All you would have to do is show that handler/trainers are currently members, as well as professionals in related fields (various medical and habilitative/rehabilitative fields such as PT/OT, teachers, etc), and how they qualified for that membership in light of the statements I've quoted from the webpage. There certainly don't seem to be any listed on the "Members" page. 

I've "questioned" or "criticized" the project because based on available information, the SDS Project seems designed to exclude the people who actually use service dogs on a daily basis, and that the code seems likely to be designed to exclude dogs not trained by SDS Project members. 

In your recent post, you wrote, 


SFGSSD said:


> Rest assured that the people involved with the SDS project are not ignorant to the functions of working dogs in a training and handling capacity. This includes professionals as well as owner trainers. http://www.petguide.com/mobile


Thank you! That bit of information is a step in the positive direction of disclosing information about the project. How many professionals do you have with formal training in assessing the impact of a disability, and designing complete programs (of which a service dog might be an important part) to address unmet needs or ameliorate the effects of a disability? Where did they receive that training, what are their credentials? How many members have spent years relying on an individual dog to assist them with activities of daily living? 

I'd really like to see the Project as a good thing, and the people involved as having good intentions, and having the knowledge and ability to support those intentions. I'm one of the people likely to support such a project, but right now--because of the secrecy, and the exclusion--I can't. It really looks like a self-appointed group seeking to make decisions and force their ideas on others.


----------



## SFGSSD

When the code is published, full disclosure will be available. The code is not "forcing" anyone. It is voluntary and not a law to be part of SDS. 

Members creating the code are not all listed on the website. All members creating the code have been screened.

What the screening gave us is high caliber professionals as well as owner trainers that do not have a political interest in the code. Our intent was purely on the performance standards of the dog and enforcement of those standards to be able to offer a real guarantee of performance to the end user PWD. The code also has the general publics interests in mind as well. This is what is being created. 

If you have applied to be part of the creation of the code and were screened out, you can choose to be a part of SDS (pro trainer, Org or OT) once the code is complete.

As I said, you can choose to support or criticize SDS all you like, at this point it is premature to disclose things that are not finalized and premature for anyone to make assumptions to what was said.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## JustJim

If you will take the time to actually read what I've written, you'll see that I'm not the one who said the code was intended to provide legal standards for certification: that was written on the SDS website. 

Nor am I the one who stated that membership/participation in development of the code was limited to "service dog trainers and and organizations that are legally registered in their state/country", or that it is limited to "programs" or "schools": those quotes are also from the SDS website. Another statement suggesting membership is limited to professional trainers can be found on your own FaceBook page:


> Attention Professional Service Dog Trainers. Please view https://www.facebook.com/ServiceDogSchools If you are directly in the field of Service Dogs or Working Dogs and want to help create the SDS code, please follow this link and send SDS a private message to introduce yourself.


Your assertions about the code, and about membership, are in conflict with statements made on the website. Unless you can demonstrate (not _assert_, but actually somehow _show_) these statements are incorrect, the policies and goals stated on the website must be presumed to be correct. 

Based on those statements taken from their website, the SDS is seeking to make changes that will affect the application of civil rights law, while deliberately excluding the participation and input of those who will be directly affected by those changes. Notwithstanding your patronizing responses and apparent misrepresentations of SDS policies/goals, no one should be surprised when someone who might be directly affected by such changes objects to this.


----------



## Lin

You've also contradicted yourself quite a lot. In one thread you have both posts that are very anti owner trainers, and ones that you're all for them and have members of SDS that are owner trainers. You're saying now that it's voluntary and not intended to be law, but you preach endlessly on how the law currently is bad, needs to be changed, and that SDS is working on the solution. 

Honestly in all the contradictions I've seen I've given up on trying to figure out which way is real.


----------



## martemchik

Oh man that's scary...

People running this SDS project are hand picking who gets to join the debate and who doesn't? There are no set standards for joining the discussion and everything is subjective? Lol...no politics involved (yeah right), no politics are involved because you only pick people with the same agenda you have!

Thankfully I don't believe something like this will influence enough people actually making decisions to actually affect the issue or get laws passed.

And just to add, its not the "mission" or the "goal" I have a problem with. It's the decision making process that I question. Look at the way other "self-policing" industries do it. I'm familiar with the PCAOB process and any time they come up with any kind of standard there is always a public discussion where anyone that thinks they will be affected in the least bit by the standard can come and voice their opinion. The fact that this is being kept so "exclusive" is completely against the democratic principles this country's laws are built upon.


----------



## SFGSSD

Lin,

I do not know who you or JustMike is. I am not on here anonymously stirring the pot to politically support (pet partners as I seen done multiple times) or to create unjustified skepticism with others that do not follow your or others way of thinking. Sorry to say, that IS politics and not allowed (so they say on this website.) I see more contradiction and selective censorship from others in here then you will ever see from me. Enough said about that.

Yes I did advertise to attract professional service dog trainers. They can be affiliated with an org or not. But they do need to prove their competency and ability. It is difficult enough creating the code without OT's that do not know what they are doing or talking about attempting to influence a purely emotional standpoint that cannot understand working dog do's and don'ts. We have OT's that are part of the creation of the code that DO know what they are doing. 

For the record I DO support owner trainers that HAVE the ability to train their own service dog. I DO NOT support owner trainers that DO NOT have a clue to how to train a dog AND attempt to do it on their own without guidance, taking the dog in public and in no pet areas and giving other SD's and SD's in training a bad name. If you or anyone support inexperienced OT that are purely emotionally driven with dogs that are flat out a liability and a danger to the well being of the general public, as well as business owners because of their inexperience I guess we will just agree to disagree.

For the record as well, taking things out of context is also a backhanded political move that is not appreciated and I see done on here time and time again. 

I have said all I can say on the matter at this point. If that is not good enough for you and you want to see what is written and approved to be part of the code at this time, I apologies but I cannot accommodate you at this time. You must wait for it to be published like everyone else. If you need clarification of anything published at this time in regards to SDS, I will as I did in regards to owner trainers clarify. 




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Xeph

Wait, so we're just calling all sorts of random junk political now? Is that the new craze?


----------



## Sasha86

Worry about yourselves. Don't worry about others. It doesn't affect you and people should not have to prove what their disability is to anyone. It's the law


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## SFGSSD

So nothing is taken out of context. This is what actually is said in the open letter From Ken Lyons. Keep in mind JustMike and Lin, posting false or misleading statements is also against the forum rules. Curious if the mods will jump on you for it or censor the truth I just posted.

"To all Service Dog trainers and organizations, big and small.

RE: standards, certification, government involvement…..
My name is Ken Lyons and I’m the director for a small service dog school in Florida, a few small schools and myself are tackling this issue by helping to create a uniform Service Dog Code, that individual trainers, handlers and organizations choose to adopt, sort of like a “contractor who is a member of the BBB and follows the building code,” vs “the handy-man that is neither.”

There is a growing under current in the SD community about the impact of fakers and the lack of standards for OT’s and small schools. It’s my belief and many others in the field, that it’s just a matter of time before the GOV decides to do something about it.

Several schools have decided, if the GOV is going to take over, we’d at least like to make a union that puts all the schools and trainers on the same page and have the GOV using our more friendlier book versus…the gov creating it’s own standards.

This is not the first standard for service dogs, several have been made, most are political and some are expensive to use. This is an attempt to create an open standard, which means EVERYONE can see all the rules and can freely adopt them, even without being a member, just like a person can build something ‘to code’ even if they are not a contractor, just by seeing the requirements. The goal is to make it opt-in, member schools agree to follow certain standards that they help create….and later can choose to be audited by a peer trainer for a grade. (Much like the BBB, but grading on how well they abide to the ideal of the voluntary code.) Members can then advertise that they use and follow a code which helps unite all the different training organizations. This will also help in fund-raising and raising donor confidence.

Much like the electric code, UL and other building standards… a code is usually created by an industry group. Law makers are the ones that adopt that standard, and create laws mandating the use of a specific standard. So long as the industry is updating the underlying standard, it keeps the law makers from creating the specific rules.

Let me know if your interested in joining or helping with this project. At this stage there are no costs or fees, our goal is to get as many programs on the bandwagon to solidify and justify the project. Service Dogs of Florida, Inc. is currently listing this as a project so that it can extend it’s 501c3 status and accept donations for this initiative. With enough founding members it will spin off as an independent FL non-profit.

The more members – the more impact, and the stronger the case for the GOV to stay out…if the industry can clean house.

Project web-pages:
SDSchools http://www.ServiceDogCode.org SDSchools

Ken Lyons
Director of Operations
Service Dogs of Florida, Inc.
Service Dogs of Florida, Inc.
[email protected]"


----------



## Xeph

Why do you keep reminding everybody of the rules, Terry? You realize that it's bad forum etiquette, right? It's called "wanna mod-ing".


----------



## JustJim

SFGSSD said:


> Keep in mind JustMike and Lin, posting false or misleading statements is also against the forum rules. Curious if the mods will jump on you for it or censor the truth I just posted.


You are making a rather strong charge, so please be specific: exactly what false or misleading statements have I posted? I've posted quotes about things I questioned, in an effort to understand the project. 

I only did that after you repeatedly made assertions that seemed to be in conflict with the stated goals and policies posted on the website. Are you authorized to speak for the SDS project? Can your statements and actions be taken as authoritatively representing the positions and policies of the SDS project? 

And by the way, my user name is Just_Jim_, not "JustMike."


----------



## Shaolin

JustJim and Lin are making very valid points.

Generally, any group that wants their target audience, plus sources of income such as donors and trainers that would bring clients in, to know what's going on and what the plans are. How do you know anyone outside your little circle are going to want to follow the code? For example, lets say that the training section of your code says Clicker Training only; no Owner/Trainer or school can use any method other than Clicker. Then anyone who didn't follow this section of your code is now in violation and if your code becomes a standard as to identify Real SD teams vs. Fake SD Teams, anyone who did not use Clicker is now a fake. Just like with a building code, any deviation from it is a violation that is punishable.

Maybe instead of creating a training protocol, maybe a standard certification testing protocol should be created, like the CGC or SAR exams for declaring a dog operational. After the passing of the exam, a patch with a certification number could be issued and has to be visible on dogs/handlers at all times. If a business owner has a problem with a SD; dog shreds a carpet in a Dr.'s office, dog jumps up and eats off of someone's plate at a restaraunt...they can take the number, go to the Official SD Registry, look up the number and ONLY see the name/breed of the SD and the first name/gender of the registered handler, and lodge a complaint. If the dog has no number or was numbered, but used by someone who wasn't the handler in a non-animal friendly establisment, you can have a reporting system for that as well.

What is your screening process? How can you assure me, JQP, that the selection process included having people who's training idiologies and methods were different from yours to help provide a good cross section of the SD world? I wouldn't invest money in a program that was geared to suit a group of friends getting together and coming up with rules like one would do for a club or something like that. 

You could, as a group, very easily disseminate draft portions of your "code" to get JQP and SD teams opinions to help make sure that your "code" is a happy medium that everyone is willing to stand behind.


----------



## SFGSSD

Xeph said:


> Why do you keep reminding everybody of the rules, Terry? You realize that it's bad forum etiquette, right? It's called "wanna mod-ing".


Simple, I get modded for anything that even looks like it does not fall exactly in line with "rules" of this forum. I posted something Lin did not want to hear and Lin cried politics. I post the truth about ADI and Service Dog Central and it is deleted but other comments are allowed that are untrue? Or slanted about others? I call this selective censorship and I am not going to subjected to slanting that is not allowed if I did it, especially to those who hide behind an anonymous ID. 
I posted the way I posted to see if the moderation in here was unbiased. I just proved my point. End of discussion.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Xeph

> maybe a standard certification testing protocol should be created, like the CGC or SAR exams for declaring a dog operational. After the passing of the exam, a patch with a certification number could be issued and has to be visible on dogs/handlers at all times.


I disagree with this, primarily because disabilities are not standardized. You cannot standardize certifications when disabilities are all over the place. Even two people with the same disability may not need the same aid from their service dog (due to variations in that disability, or what stage of the disability a person is in).

I also am not down with having to carry such an ID on my person at all times just so I can go shopping like a normal person. Others aren't stopped and asked for ID while shopping, why should I be?

If my dog acts inappropriately and there are damages, I need to pay for them, but all you need for that is my personal ID.

And how to you make this "certification" accessible to all who need it? Who will pay for it? The disabled, who are often under financial constraints as it is (and do not always have access to transportation), or will it be funded through taxes (which nobody would be happy about)?



> I posted the way I posted to see if the moderation in here was unbiased. I just proved my point. End of discussion.


Riiiiiiight......ok then


----------



## x11

you guys need to lighten it up here, why don't y'all come over to the leash thread and have a wee fun time out.


----------



## Lin

SFGSSD said:


> So nothing is taken out of context. This is what actually is said in the open letter From Ken Lyons. Keep in mind JustMike and Lin, posting false or misleading statements is also against the forum rules. Curious if the mods will jump on you for it or censor the truth I just posted.


Excuse me, but what have I posted that was false or misleading?


SFGSSD said:


> Simple, I get modded for anything that even looks like it does not fall exactly in line with "rules" of this forum. I posted something Lin did not want to hear and Lin cried politics. I post the truth about ADI and Service Dog Central and it is deleted but other comments are allowed that are untrue? Or slanted about others? I call this selective censorship and I am not going to subjected to slanting that is not allowed if I did it, especially to those who hide behind an anonymous ID.
> I posted the way I posted to see if the moderation in here was unbiased. I just proved my point. End of discussion.


And when have you posted something that I didn't want to hear? You're free to post whatever you want here within forum rules. So am I. If I notice an inconsistency in your posts and am confused by it, I'm free to point that out. 

I never cried "politics" in fact you've repeatedly accused me of having some political agenda, yet never explained when I asked what sort of agenda it supposedly was. What I DID do was remind you that political debates are against forum rules when you posted a derogatory comment towards liberals, which is a political party. 

I don't know anything about deleted posts about Service Dog Central since I'm not a moderator, I did notice that you had a post deleted about ADI. If you honestly don't know why it was deleted (I don't, I didn't read it prior to it being deleted) then you should message a moderator or administrator to ask. You are free to say anything you want within forum rules, thats the only censorship there is. The only posts that I've seen that I would consider slanted would honestly be yours. Everyone is free to express personal opinion, and that doesn't make something slanted. I think it was castlemaid who remarked your posts appear paranoid, and I would have to agree they're becoming increasingly paranoid sounding.

Not that its relevant to this discussion, but I don't hide behind an anonymous username. I use my real name. I've posted my last name many times as well.


----------



## Lin

Shaolin said:


> Maybe instead of creating a training protocol, maybe a standard certification testing protocol should be created, like the CGC or SAR exams for declaring a dog operational. After the passing of the exam, a patch with a certification number could be issued and has to be visible on dogs/handlers at all times. If a business owner has a problem with a SD; dog shreds a carpet in a Dr.'s office, dog jumps up and eats off of someone's plate at a restaraunt...they can take the number, go to the Official SD Registry, look up the number and ONLY see the name/breed of the SD and the first name/gender of the registered handler, and lodge a complaint. If the dog has no number or was numbered, but used by someone who wasn't the handler in a non-animal friendly establisment, you can have a reporting system for that as well.


There are a lot of problems with certification. I don't want to go into it in this thread since its been discussed so many times before, if you do a search you can find many threads on the subject. If you'd like to start a new thread on the subject I'd respond there! I think certification would be great if it could be implemented in a way that didn't cause immense problems for the person with a disability. The ADA is a civil rights law, its all about the rights of the disabled to put them on par with a non disabled individual. And so the law is written in the way that gives the maximum rights to the PWD. Unfortunately a lot of people abuse this. There needs to be a way to cut off those that abuse the law without punishing those that follow it, and making things more difficult for the PWD and preventing many people from having access to a service animal.


----------



## Shaolin

Xeph said:


> I disagree with this, primarily because disabilities are not standardized. You cannot standardize certifications when disabilities are all over the place. Even two people with the same disability may not need the same aid from their service dog (due to variations in that disability, or what stage of the disability a person is in).
> 
> I also am not down with having to carry such an ID on my person at all times just so I can go shopping like a normal person. Others aren't stopped and asked for ID while shopping, why should I be?
> 
> If my dog acts inappropriately and there are damages, I need to pay for them, but all you need for that is my personal ID.
> 
> And how to you make this "certification" accessible to all who need it? Who will pay for it? The disabled, who are often under financial constraints as it is (and do not always have access to transportation), or will it be funded through taxes (which nobody would be happy about)?


You are correct. I was thinking about the basics; walks calmly on lead, isn't startled by loud noises, dog/people friendly...kind of like the Therapy Dog test, plus a short demonstration of what the dog specifically does for you i.e: Gets your cell phone out of your purse, picks something up off the floor on command, turns off a light, ect. Whatever the dog does to help/assist you, you just show that the dog can do it. In the case of an ESA, a standard TD test should be sufficient (those things are hard depending on which standard you look at.)

I'm not saying you are stopped and asked for ID. I'm saying if your dog is wearing a vest (all the SDs I've ever seen wear a vest of some sort, so if this is not the standard case, I apologize), it has a special patch on it with a certification number. I'm used to having to carry around my EMS Certs with me at all times and wear a patch with my level of training on it; it proves I'm a licensed Paramedic and the licensing board for my state, when doing random inspections, can ask to see it. Also, if I stop at an accident and identify myself as a Paramedic, I can pull out my card and they can check to make sure I am who/what I say I am. 

On duty, I've asked people who ID themselves as Medics or EMTs for their cert numbers. The ones who don't have an issue with it are "real" and offer them up readily without complaint while "fakes" will throw a fit and/or give inappropriate numbers (cert numbers for us are between 7-9 digits long depending on the state).

Would you be okay with carrying around a card with a registry number on it? Non-visible to JQP, but if something happens, they can determine if your dog is actually a SD instead of someone trying to buck the system. 

It doesn't have to be a huge cost. I shelled out 50$ for my National Registry Test and it was a one time fee. If your SD is paid for through an organization, the organization could do it pro bono or the testing organization can have a scholarship program where you can apply for low/no cost testing...same thing the NR does for those that seriously need the financial aid.


----------



## Lin

Shaolin said:


> In the case of an ESA, a standard TD test should be sufficient (those things are hard depending on which standard you look at.)


There is no training required for an ESA. They are not allowed out in public where pets are not allowed. They are only allowed in no pet housing and on airplanes. As for being allowed on airplanes with no training, thats something that I don't understand. 

There are also psychiatric service dogs, which are no different than other types of service animals and completely different from ESAs.



> (all the SDs I've ever seen wear a vest of some sort, so if this is not the standard case, I apologize)


Many SDs wear a vest or harness that helps identify them as a SD, but it is not required and the law states that no identification is needed while a SD is working.


----------



## Shaolin

Lin said:


> There is no training required for an ESA. They are not allowed out in public where pets are not allowed. They are only allowed in no pet housing and on airplanes. As for being allowed on airplanes with no training, thats something that I don't understand.
> 
> There are also psychiatric service dogs, which are no different than other types of service animals and completely different from ESAs.
> 
> 
> Many SDs wear a vest or harness that helps identify them as a SD, but it is not required and the law states that no identification is needed while a SD is working.


Yes, I know that there's no training for an ESA. I was clarifying my thoughts for what type of cert test an ESA or SD should go through. Since there's not a physical act that an ESA does, the same with a Psychiatric dog (as far as I know...I could be wrong), the Therapy Dog test could be done to determine if the dog is going to "cause trouble" under normal, general circumstances.

I understand what the law says. I know most people who have a SD have a patch on it that says something along the lines of, "Working Dog, do not pet". I was just making a comment on my personal idea on how to identify a real SD team versus a fake team.


----------



## Lin

Shaolin said:


> Since there's not a physical act that an ESA does, the same with a Psychiatric dog (as far as I know...I could be wrong)


Sorry for another correction LOL. 

But incorrect, Psychiatric service dogs, as service dogs, must perform tasks to mitigate the handlers disability. Emotional support and love is not a service task and service tasks are required for service dogs. 

From the revised service dog definition:


> Service animals are defined as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. Examples of such work or tasks include guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling a wheelchair, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, reminding a person with mental illness to take prescribed medications, calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack, or performing other duties. Service animals are working animals, not pets. *The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person’s disability. Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.*


----------



## SFGSSD

Shaloin,

Officially it is a work in progress. Nobody on here besides me has seen the code at this point that I am aware of, but others that have not seen it are attacking it. 

I only asked for criticism to be held until people are certain what they are criticizing. The code is not complete and is not published. Apparently that was not good enough for some. If you feel you have the credentials to be part of the creation of the SDS code, send Ken Lyons an email. 

SDS certified dogs will come with a real guarantee. SDS certified trainers orgs and OT's are bound by the code alone and are realistically accountable. This is a realistic attempt to fix the problems within the Service Dog industry. Will EVERYONE be happy about it? No, but then again not EVERYONE has a SD that is legitimate and or not a liability in public, nor do all trainers and facilities put out a good product. Nor has the ones not putting out a good product been realistically held accountable without political bias. 

We do not expect financial support till the code is complete and there is a working model. I think that is fair as only then will it be clear to everyone what exactly it is that they are supporting. 

I bet a lot of people thought they knew what they were supporting in regards to ADI. However unlike ADI when the code is complete it is something everyone can see. There will not be one version for "members" and another for the public to ohhh and ahhhh over. 

Anyone is entitled to an opinion in this forum. apparently it does not matter if that opinion is based on ignorance as long as it supports the hidden agendas of others on this forum that may or may not be so obvious to others. 

If you have any further questions about SDS you may direct them to the President of SDS Ken Lyons 

I personally and SDS believes the PWD, business owners, and general public deserves better when it comes to SD's and it is a goal to provide an option to be part of better. As I once said, the only ones that would logically balk at the code is those who produce or have questionable SD's as they are the ONLY ones that realistically would be threatened by a realistic standard that is realistically enforced and not influenced by politics or money.



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Lin

I haven't seen a single person attack the code, unless you're referring to attack happening on another website. 

JustJim repeated multiple times that he was discussing the information that was stated on the websites, and not the code since the code is not available to view.

And the bashing ADI is really getting old. I don't even understand what your purpose is, I've never seen anyone go on and on about how great ADI is the way you go on and on about the negatives. Its just not relevant to any of the topics where you bring it up.


----------



## Xeph

> Anyone is entitled to an opinion in this forum. apparently it does not matter if that opinion is based on ignorance as long as it supports the hidden agendas of others on this forum that may or may not be so obvious to others.


Could you just....stop? Almost everything you've posted in the last few posts has sounded paranoid and borderline attacking some people.

I mean, seriously.

And I am somebody with a legitimate, well trained SD...I'm still not down with this whole "code" deal. There are plenty who wouldn't be


----------



## Shaolin

Lin said:


> Sorry for another correction LOL.
> 
> But incorrect, Psychiatric service dogs, as service dogs, must perform tasks to mitigate the handlers disability. Emotional support and love is not a service task and service tasks are required for service dogs.
> 
> From the revised service dog definition:


By all means! Please correct me. I am learning about ESAs and Psych. Dogs. I've known a few SDs for physical disabilites, but the only Psych. Dog I've ever come across was in training, as the owner/handler moved into my service area. They said the dog helped the owner through panic attacks by "being near the handler and providing reassurance when in public or crowded spaces or moments when the handler could be under extreme stress." I remember the dog laying its head across the owners' lap when we took the owner to the hospital, but I don't remember any other "action" the dog was trained to do. It could've had some other "action" but I don't remember being briefed on it.




SFGSSD said:


> Shaloin,
> 
> Officially it is a work in progress. Nobody on here besides me has seen the code at this point that I am aware of, but others that have not seen it are attacking it.
> 
> I only asked for criticism to be held until people are certain what they are criticizing. The code is not complete and is not published. Apparently that was not good enough for some. If you feel you have the credentials to be part of the creation of the SDS code, send Ken Lyons an email.
> 
> SDS certified dogs will come with a real guarantee. SDS certified trainers orgs and OT's are bound by the code alone and are realistically accountable. This is a realistic attempt to fix the problems within the Service Dog industry. Will EVERYONE be happy about it? No, but then again not EVERYONE has a SD that is legitimate and or not a liability in public, nor do all trainers and facilities put out a good product. Nor has the ones not putting out a good product been realistically held accountable without political bias.
> 
> We do not expect financial support till the code is complete and there is a working model. I think that is fair as only then will it be clear to everyone what exactly it is that they are supporting.
> 
> I bet a lot of people thought they knew what they were supporting in regards to ADI. However unlike ADI when the code is complete it is something everyone can see. There will not be one version for "members" and another for the public to ohhh and ahhhh over.
> 
> Anyone is entitled to an opinion in this forum. apparently it does not matter if that opinion is based on ignorance as long as it supports the hidden agendas of others on this forum that may or may not be so obvious to others.
> 
> If you have any further questions about SDS you may direct them to the President of SDS Ken Lyons
> 
> I personally and SDS believes the PWD, business owners, and general public deserves better when it comes to SD's and it is a goal to provide an option to be part of better. As I once said, the only ones that would logically balk at the code is those who produce or have questionable SD's as they are the ONLY ones that realistically would be threatened by a realistic standard that is realistically enforced and not influenced by politics or money.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


I guess my question is, why can't your program be as transparent as a lot of other programs are when it comes to developing new protocols? The only similar thing I can think of is the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians. 

Anytime there's a huge change, the EMS population is kept 'in the loop' through the development of the protocol. Just recently, they changed the certification levels, but they've been working on this for a few years. Through it all, you could go to the NREMT website and look at what they were discussing; new optional treatment protocols, new mandatory treatment protocols, new registration/testing/re-certification protocols, whatever. If you had a problem with it, you could write to the NREMT with your opinion. If enough people complained, they came up with a happy medium.

Why wouldn't you offer sections of your code up for people to see to either agree or disagree with? Even if you did absolutely nothing with the complaints, at least partial transparency is better than a group who is trying to help regulate an entire industry having a total blackout until the code is released that you expect an entire industry to fall in line with.


----------



## SFGSSD

We do not "expect" the entire industry to fall in line but we "suspect" that the best ones will want to as well as the general public and businesses, we "suspect" they will support it as well. 

The reason we call it a "code" is because within the SD industry, to be able to accommodate as much as humanly possible, there needs to be some sort of variance (like the building code). 

This is something that is completely new. If everything was disclosed at this point, it would be like showing blueprints to a project before you secured the patent and have a working model yourself. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Xeph

So, question:





Is this dog actually in training, or did it pass the PAT? Because the information given in the video is contradictory. At the beginning it says he is in training, at the end it says "PAT certification passed".

On top of that, if it were a real PAT, why is the dog being fed every few seconds? And why is the dog off leash in public areas?

I will admit to having trouble considering somebody an authority on what should constitute a "legitimate working dog" when they post so much contradictory information.


----------



## Cheyanna

Shaolin, the only problem is that something the dog does cannot be seen. Fiona is first and foremost a pain management dog for me because I suffer from chronic pain. It would be hard to prove that she provides pain relief, because you cannot test for pain. She is being trained to do different things for me,because I have multiple disabilities. She has already learned when I get dizzy and can balance me. But that is also something hard to prove because I cannot control or predict when I will get hit with a dizzy spell. Eventually, she should be able to help me get up when I fall. That is easy to prove.

Fiona has a vest. She actually has 3 vests and 2 bandanas. I got them off the Internet. So a faker could do that too. One clue that I am not a faker, is I wear a medic alert bracelet, to give EMS or paramedics a clue if I am down. I also have a handicap placard. To get that I had to submit documentation from my doctor. So the sellers of these items could seek a doctor note to cut down on the fakers.

People ask me all the time where I got her vest. I will not tell them, because I don't want to encourage the fakers. 

In California, service dogs are issued an assistance dog license from the state. It is given by the county you live in. That also is a way to cut down on fakers.









Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Cheyanna

Fiona has a patch that says "ask to pet me". More than one person bent down to Fiona and said "can I pet you?" Another took it as an invitation to pet her. :headbang: I was annoyed at the time, but now I look back and laugh. Dumb me, I should have gotten the do not pet patch.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Cheyanna

Xeph said:


> And I am somebody with a legitimate, well trained SD...I'm still not down with this whole "code" deal. There are plenty who wouldn't be


Me too. Fiona is legit. She is well behaved. Fully trained in her most important job. I am not supportive of any NGO setting the parameters for SD. Nor am I interested in requiring certified trainers or schools. Fiona has a professional trainer. But because I have multiple disabilities it was almost impossible to find an org that could cross train for all the things I need. I am fortunate that I have a professional trainer that lives 2 miles from me. If I had not met him at a chance encounter not disability related, I would be still trying to figure out what to do. Luckily he could select the dog with the right temperament for me, as I had no clue what to look for. But some people may not be so lucky.

The one organization that accepted me, but could not cross train, just do my # 1 & 2 needs said I needed to raise $24k to help pay for the dog. That freaked me out. Where was I going to get that money? They suggested car washes and bake sales. Not good for a mobility impaired diabetic with no willpower. I am sure there must be people in my shoes (not rich) and the wait list was long. I had a two year wait. I got bumped up to only a year wait. But a wait none the less. I need help now so I can keep working now. So some people have no choice but to train their own dog. They are still legit SD.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## JustJim

Before posting in this thread, I made an attempt to contact Mr. Lyons via email but have heard nothing back. That happens sometimes: emails get lost in Spam traps or filtered into seldom-checked folders, or set aside to answer later and forgotten. I'd hoped to get some clarification about the SDS here, particularly in light of some of SFGSSD's comments. I apologize for contributing to the sidetracking of the discussion.

I'm not a mod so have no knowledge of any deleted posts; I'm not sure where or how ADI and Service Dog Central came into the discussion. I certainly have no connection with ADI, and for good reasons left Service Dog Central long ago.


----------



## martemchik

SFGSSD said:


> Officially it is a work in progress. Nobody on here besides me has seen the code at this point that I am aware of, but others that have not seen it are attacking it.
> 
> I only asked for criticism to be held until people are certain what they are criticizing. The code is not complete and is not published. Apparently that was not good enough for some. If you feel you have the credentials to be part of the creation of the SDS code, send Ken Lyons an email.


Yeah I don't have a problem with the code...but I have a huge problem with that last paragraph. What are the "credentials" needed to be part of the creation of the SDS code? The fact that you, or the website, don't list the credentials, makes this whole thing smell funny. That's where the politics get involved...the creation of the code has limited politics, but the selection process most likely has plenty. I'm sure there are enough people that the "founders" of this idea turned away because they KNEW they would go against them in certain respects.

If this were just going to be a "suggested standard" I wouldn't care. But the fact that you're going to try to push this as legislation isn't right. You're not allowing the "general public" to have a say in it, but yet you want to try and get the general public to abide by it. No one but the limited few get a say in who joins the discussion, but the plan is to make everyone abide by what they come up with.

I'm with JustJim on this one...he mentioned the paramedic thing, I've mentioned the accounting thing, there are self-regulated industries all over the place. But the requirements/credentials for joining any discussion on a policy change are clearly listed and known. If it affects the public...the public should be allowed to have a say in what it is. The way you guys are structuring the SDS discussion...I hope it never gets even a breath in any legislative discussion.


----------



## Shaolin

SFGSSD said:


> We do not "expect" the entire industry to fall in line but we "suspect" that the best ones will want to as well as the general public and businesses, we "suspect" they will support it as well.
> 
> The reason we call it a "code" is because within the SD industry, to be able to accommodate as much as humanly possible, there needs to be some sort of variance (like the building code).
> 
> This is something that is completely new. If everything was disclosed at this point, it would be like showing blueprints to a project before you secured the patent and have a working model yourself.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


It happens...a lot more than you think. 

Every protocol that is going to be put up to be voted on to become a state/local/federal thing is put up for peer review and review by JQP and Paramedics/EMTs across the reach of the NREMT. 

I ran an EMS company for a year. Every Standard Operating Guideline that I and my Line Officers wanted to change was printed up and posted on the company online forum and a company message board inside the station. It listed the original Guideline, then the proposed changes. Everyone had 45 days to submit their comments/questions/complaints. My management team and I looked at everything, took it all under consideration, made changes if needed, and reposted. If we got an overwhelming response in the positive, it was brought to a secret ballot company vote that everyone, officers and employees both, got an equal say in. Depending on the vote was what way we went.

If it was an SOG that affected JQP, like us wanting to raise the siren decibles due to a change in federal guidelines, it was brought before the Mayor and put before the community during the montly meeting. The community had 45 days to give their comments and we did accordingly following a vote by JQP.

You (the foundation you, not you personally) seem to be trying to accomidate those who have a similar train of thought as you, not taking into consideration what others might think. After watching the video, I was left with more questions than I was answers...


----------



## Xeph

Terry, I'm still awaiting an answer to a question I think is very important.

Particularly why a dog is off leash in a mall when he does not need to be off leash to perform his job.


----------



## Castlemaid

Terry has been banned, Xeph. You may need to contact him privately for your answer. Though it is a good question.


----------



## Lin

Xeph said:


> I will admit to having trouble considering somebody an authority on what should constitute a "legitimate working dog" when they post so much contradictory information.


Careful, you point out the contradictions and ask which way the truth is and you're suddenly working for an agenda and personally attacked lol. 

Now that he's banned, I assume his paranoia is probably only going to increase, since he obviously wasn't able to understand and follow forum rules. I am disappointed I wont get to find out what my supposed political agenda is (accused of in other threads) or what he thinks I've lied or mislead about. 



Cheyanna said:


> Shaolin, the only problem is that something the dog does cannot be seen. Fiona is first and foremost a pain management dog for me because I suffer from chronic pain. It would be hard to prove that she provides pain relief, because you cannot test for pain. She is being trained to do different things for me,because I have multiple disabilities. She has already learned when I get dizzy and can balance me. But that is also something hard to prove because I cannot control or predict when I will get hit with a dizzy spell. Eventually, she should be able to help me get up when I fall. That is easy to prove.


Well anything that cannot be seen, cannot count as a service task. Thats like emotional support being given, or just the dogs presence being calming. While those are pluses for the SD handler, those are not actual service tasks. Service tasks must be trained to count. Balancing and bracing is easy to demonstrate, even if you don't need it at the exact time. Tessa does a lot of balancing and bracing work for me, I can easily demonstrate it even if I'm not currently dizzy or off balance.


----------

