# SDs and Breed Bans



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Just wanted to get some thoughts going here. 

We all know some areas have breed bans - most concern Pitt Bulls & Mixes. *Now please, let's not get into a BSL discussion or the right or wrong of BSL/Breed Bans. *

What are your feelings of exempting any type or breed of dog if it is an Assistance/Service Dog?

Now before you answer please take a moment ... some of the facts may surprise you.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

I'm not too sure if I even like breed bands in general. Assistance/Service dogs are trained to do a job and there are several breeds that can do this job well. Whether its a GSD, a pit bull, or a golden retriever, the dogs chosen to be trained show positive traits that are taken into consideration when they are being chosen. If the dog is an assistance/service dog then no breed should be exempt.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

The topic is:

In areas where there are breed bans, should an Assistance/Service Dog be exampt from that ban? 

Does any area, county, or state that currently have breed bans already have an exemption in place for an Assistance/Service Dog. 

Remember, we are not discussing if there should be breed bans etc. but the *legality of exampting a certain group of dogs from an existing ban*.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

Doesn't Federal Law state that any breed can be a service dog? Wouldn't Fed Law overrule county/state bans? That would be my understanding.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> Doesn't Federal Law state that any breed can be a service dog? Wouldn't Fed Law overrule county/state bans?


I don't know of any Federal Law in the USC (United States Code) that addresses particular breeds (mixes) that are allowed or disallowed to be used as a SD. The highest law that I am aware of close to this issue is Regulatory Law by the Dept. of Justice which states the requirements for a dog to be legally defined as a SD under Title II and Title III of the ADA and more currently the ADARA (ADA Reformation Act, 2008).

I also don't know of any Federal Law currently that gives breed ban exemptions for an Assistance/Service Dog.


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

I think there should be an exemption for banned breeds that are Service Dogs. The problem then becomes how do we define a Service Dog? Most cities would want some sort of documentation for the Service Dog, showing that he was needed and trained for such a purpose. That might require some sort of licensing by the city for the exemption.

It might be that a banned breed Service Dog could be grandfathered in if the law was passed after the dog was trained, or if the dog was trained and then moved into the city. I would also think that the city would be within its rights to ban the training of a banned breed as a Service Dog after the law was passed.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

Good points Andaka.

There is a concern in some SD groups that if laws would be made giving exemptions that there would be a huge rise in people buying fake certification or claiming their pets as SDs. 

FL just recently had a proposed bill which made mention of an exemption (bill was "lost/not given the time" somewhere in the last rush before legislative recess. But, we hope for better results next time. So this concern will hopefully be discussed.


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

This is why I think there DOES need to be some type of legal certification or something along those lines to prove what is and isn't a service dog. 

A lot of people fake service dogs, and if the law was that a service pit bull is exempt from the breed ban, a lot more people would have fake service dogs.

However, yes, I do believe that legitimate service dogs that are a banned breed should be exempt. The issue would be proving that the dogs are, in fact, service dogs.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

ILGHAUS said:


> The topic is:
> 
> In areas where there are breed bans, should an Assistance/Service Dog be exampt from that ban?
> 
> ...


 
Absolutely should not be exempt from any Breed ban!

(Because then maybe people would see how stupid a breed ban of ANY breed is!)


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

Konotashi said:


> This is why I think there DOES need to be some type of legal certification or something along those lines to prove what is and isn't a service dog.
> 
> A lot of people fake service dogs, and if the law was that a service pit bull is exempt from the breed ban, a lot more people would have fake service dogs.
> 
> However, yes, I do believe that legitimate service dogs that are a banned breed should be exempt. The issue would be proving that the dogs are, in fact, service dogs.


 
I agree with you 100%. I have helped disabled folks get their money back from folks selling"service dogs" . there are folks out there who prey on these folks. That is a special breed of scum... Anyway, if there was a requirement that the dogs pass a mandated type of certification it would protect those needing the dogs. just my opinion of course..


----------



## OriginalWacky (Dec 21, 2011)

I would love to see a law passed that makes service dogs required to pass something like the ADI Public Access Test; with independent judges. If all service dogs were able to meet the minimum standards, and had passed a test to show they did, then it would be much more difficult to just bring a random dog into an establishment and claim it is a service dog.

I do think that a service dog should be exempt from breed bans, but as others have said, the proof that it's an actual service dog needs to be there. (I'll refrain from going on a rant about how horrible I think breed bans are.)


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

mycobraracr said:


> Doesn't Federal Law state that any breed can be a service dog? Wouldn't Fed Law overrule county/state bans? That would be my understanding.



I just read a story about a month ago something to this nature, but I'm not sure what the end result was. I know it was a town that didn't allow pit bulls and the service dog was a pit bull. It was going higher up because they did not want that dog there and the guy wanted to keep his dog.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

Here is the story.........

For 32 years, nearly half as a tactical officer, Jim Sak was a cop chasing down bad guys on the streets of Chicago.

Now that he’s retired and living in tiny Aurelia, Ia., the townsfolk are chasing him — to get rid of “Snickers,” a five-year-old Pit bull-mix service dog he needs after suffering a debilitating stroke that left him with no feeling on the right side of his body.

On orders from the Aurelia City Council, a heartbroken Sak has shipped his beloved protector off to a kennel just outside of the Iowa town where he moved last month to be closer to his ailing, 87-year-old mother-in-law. If he hadn’t gotten rid of Snickers, city fathers had threatened to seize and destroy the dog.

The mandate sets the stage for a landmark lawsuit on grounds that the federal Americans for Disabilities Act (ADA) guarantees people with disabilities the right to have service dogs, regardless of their breed.

“I can’t believe they didn’t even try to talk to us. They just said, ‘No. You’re not having him. He’s outlawed in this town,’ “ Sak said Tuesday.

“I have spasms on my right side where the leg gives out whenever I get upset or try to do too much. When Snickers sees that my hand is moving, he sits down by me right away and waits for me to tell him what to do. Usually, he goes to get my wife so she can help me get back in the chair. Without him, I feel lost.”

He added, “I was a policeman for 32 years. I understand there’s black and white, but there’s also a grey area where you have to use your head. They’re not using their heads.”

Peggy Sak, Jim’s wife, said she’s “appalled and embarrassed by the town I grew up in…They have made our lives a living **** since we got here.”

She said she had no idea when she moved to Aurelia that the town had an ordinance banning pit bulls. That’s a crackdown that’s been talked about in Chicago, but never implemented.

“They called us to a city council meeting Dec. 14 and voted 3 to 2 to make no exceptions. I had to get him out of the house by the next day. That dog has never been away from us a night in his life. He’s the sweetest, most good-natured dog you’d ever want to meet,” Peggy Sak said.

“I left the meeting and threw up on the street outside the place. I can’t stop crying. Jim, being the Chicago cop, is stoic, but very depressed. It’s terrible. I’m afraid to leave him. My mother is now helping take care of Jim because the dog isn’t here to help him.”

George Wittgraf, an attorney representing the Iowa town, said Aurelia is “simply exercising its authority to protect and preserve the rights and property of its residents — whether or not that’s trumped by” federal law.

City Clerk Barb Messerole said the ordinance was approved in March, 2008 after a meter reader was bitten by a pit bull.

“They had several people come forward saying they were concerned about the pit bull because of the nature of the breed. They just feel it’s unsafe. They’re aggressive and could hurt somebody. If the service animal was anything but a pit bull, it would have been fine,” she said.

The Animal Farm Foundation said the group has hired an attorney to represent the Sak family and is paying to board the dog at the out-of-town kennel, pending the legal challenge.

“It’s about the injustice of this man having his service dog taken away — this man who is a Viet Nam War veteran and a retired Chicago Police officer who has always given back to the community,” said executive director Stacy Coleman.

“This town has taken away this man’s independence, his peace of mind, and his freedom to move about his house, go out in public and keep from having to go to a nursing home with 24-hour care. He’s physically in danger without his dog.”


----------



## ladylaw203 (May 18, 2001)

Well, what is really stupid is that they could have brought in say, three independent real dog trainers to evaluate the dog's temperament and THEN decide if the dog is dangerous. I am very wary of pits and chows in my area. For a reason. Lots of dog fighting in the shadows.... however, I have also been almost eaten alive by a complainant's foo foo on calls so it is about the individual dog


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

For Informational purposes ....



> the federal Americans for Disabilities Act (ADA) guarantees people with disabilities the right to have service dogs, regardless of their breed.


*The ADA does not address Service Dogs at all* - that has been a common belief and continues to be passed on.

***
Simple version: 

Congress (via the House & the Senate) passes bills which are then signed by the President. An example of such a law is the ADA of 1990 and the Revised ADA, 2008. Common Law which is then published in the USC (United States Code)

The Executive Branch of the Government, of which the President is the head, assigns and sets up various Federal Agencies to oversee the implementation of our Federal Laws.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) was mandated to oversee Title II and Title III of the ADA. They do this by Regulatory Law (Regulations). These regs are printed into the Federal Register.

_Title I concerns employment and is overseen by the EEOC._

It is the DOJ in their Regulations that addresses SDs. For an example and the part with a definition of a SD is the Final Ruling of the DOJ:
[Federal Register: September 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 178)][Rules and Regulations] [Page 56236-56358]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 36
[CRT Docket No. 106; AG Order No. 3181-2010]
RIN 1190-AA44

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/guide-therapy-service-dogs/173555-28-cfr-part-36-a.html


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Well it's a bit shaky, but while I worked as ACO (in a town with a breed ban - which was in place when I got hired), a woman claimed her pit bull was a 'therapy dog'. 
Which is different than an actual service dog. And it was bunk anyway. The woman had some mental issues and said her pit bull helped her.

My boss told me the dog was in town, had complaints, so I was told to go tell her to move the dog out of town. 
Of course she did not comply. The PD kept getting complaints so this time I went with an officer who assisted in impounding the dog pending a court trial.

The outcome, after weeks of waiting and the town's attorney working on it, the attorney stated that the therapy dog was not protected under ADA, and that the owner could choose any breed of dog to be her therapy dog. The ban stood and she had to rehome the dog. 

Sadly (and this has nothing to do with the story) after budget cuts caused my job to dissolve (moved over to city hall instead of the PD and became "code enforcement", which I did not want to do, especially fulltime) I was on call for the city for a year to do euthanasia and help train the CE guys with dog stuff, and one of the guys called me to check on a dog who'd died over the weekend. 
I went down there and it was the same dog I'd impounded back then 
She had apparently gotten pyo and the CE's didn't know it and she passed away from infection. She was picked up for either dangerous or potentially dangerous out in the county, either attacking and injuring an animal or a human (guessing animal, as she was a sweetheart).


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

msvette2u said:


> Well it's a bit shaky, but while I worked as ACO (in a town with a breed ban - which was in place when I got hired), a woman claimed her pit bull was a 'therapy dog'.
> Which is different than an actual service dog. And it was bunk anyway. The woman had some mental issues and said her pit bull helped her.
> 
> My boss told me the dog was in town, had complaints, so I was told to go tell her to move the dog out of town.
> ...


My Mom just took a class for her work about service and therpapy dogs. According to my Mom the laws changed again this year and therapy dogs are now covered as well. I have not looked into this myself, but my Mom's a pretty spot on lady


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> the laws changed again this year and therapy dogs are now covered as well.


If you are talking about the Revised ADA and the Regulatory Law of the DOJ, the definition of SDs went into effect in March of 2011. The DOJ changes only address SDs - not even SDITs are included. 

Therapy Dogs are legally pets and must abide by laws the same as any other pet dog. There are only several places in the U.S. where a registered Therapy Dog (through a Therapy Dog organization) receive any additional priviledges over other pet dogs.

I'm not sure what law or coverage you are referring re: Therapy Dogs.


----------



## Zeeva (Aug 10, 2010)

deed not breed. i don't agree with breed bans :-( but frankly i'm not that experienced so i may be wrong in my mindset.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

If you check out the link that I gave in this thread to the Federal Register 28 CFR Part 36 you will see a section of a discussion held during one of the meetings between the DOJ and concerned organizations and individuals. In it is the only mention so far of breed bans. Some were for and some were against. The DOJ took the position that breed bans should not effect SDs. And this is the part that some people are pointing to and quoting when they say the ADA or the DOJ gives an exemption to SDs regarding breed bans.

Well yes and no. For whatever reason the DOJ in the thought process that we not a part of that procedure can only guess at, never made this position as part of their Final Ruling. 

At this point it is only a guidance or a suggestion by the DOJ, which while carries a certain level of weight does not make this guidance absolute in the court system. If a case would go to court on a SD of a breed under a local or state breed ban then it would a very good move on the part of a lawyer for the defense to submit this DOJ guidance to the Judge. But until there are a number of cases with rulings (which could go either way) there is not enough "case law" to make this a safer stand to use banned breeds.

If an individual wants to use such a breed as their SD that is their choice but they should only make this choice after knowing the current legal position and the possibility that they may loose their dog.


----------

