# Why not a SD that is also a visiting TD?



## SFGSSD

First I would like to be clear on what the Legal Definition of a Service Animal is and what the Definition of a Therapy dog is.
Right from the Department of Justice website, please pay close attention to the areas I highlighted in red.

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Disability Rights Section




Service Animals
The Department of Justice published revised final regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for title II (State and local government services) and title III (public accommodations and commercial facilities) on September 15, 2010, in the Federal Register. These requirements, or rules, clarify and refine issues that have arisen over the past 20 years and contain new, and updated, requirements, including the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design (2010 Standards). 
Overview 

This publication provides guidance on the term “service animal” and the service animal provisions in the Department’s new regulations.
Beginning on March 15, 2011, only dogs are recognized as service animals under titles II and III of the ADA.
A service animal is a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability.
Generally, title II and title III entities must permit service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas where members of the public are allowed to go.

How “Service Animal” Is Defined

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.

This definition does not affect or limit the broader definition of “assistance animal” under the Fair Housing Act or the broader definition of “service animal” under the Air Carrier Access Act.

Some State and local laws also define service animal more broadly than the ADA does. Information about such laws can be obtained from the State attorney general’s office.

Where Service Animals Are Allowed

Under the ADA, State and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that serve the public generally must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go. For example, in a hospital it would be inappropriate to exclude a service animal from areas such as patient rooms, clinics, cafeterias, or examination rooms. However, it may be appropriate to exclude a service animal from operating rooms or burn units where the animal’s presence may compromise a sterile environment.

Service Animals Must Be Under Control

Under the ADA, service animals must be harnessed, leashed, or tethered, unless these devices interfere with the service animal’s work or the individual’s disability prevents using these devices. In that case, the individual must maintain control of the animal through voice, signal, or other effective controls.

Inquiries, Exclusions, Charges, and Other Specific Rules Related to Service Animals
When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.
Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.
A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence.
Establishments that sell or prepare food must allow service animals in public areas even if state or local health codes prohibit animals on the premises.
People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals.
If a business such as a hotel normally charges guests for damage that they cause, a customer with a disability may also be charged for damage caused by himself or his service animal.
Staff are not required to provide care or food for a service animal.

Miniature Horses

In addition to the provisions about service dogs, the Department’s revised ADA regulations have a new, separate provision about miniature horses that have been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. (Miniature horses generally range in height from 24 inches to 34 inches measured to the shoulders and generally weigh between 70 and 100 pounds.) Entities covered by the ADA must modify their policies to permit miniature horses where reasonable. The regulations set out four assessment factors to assist entities in determining whether miniature horses can be accommodated in their facility. The assessment factors are (1) whether the miniature horse is housebroken; (2) whether the miniature horse is under the owner’s control; (3) whether the facility can accommodate the miniature horse’s type, size, and weight; and (4) whether the miniature horse’s presence will not compromise legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operation of the facility. 

For more information about the ADA, please visit our website or call our toll-free number.


_ (Continued below) :_


----------



## Castlemaid

_ ADMIN NOTE: above post cut and continued here. Posts not to exceed 1000 words as per board rules. _

(continued from above: ) 

ADA Website

www.ADA.gov

To receive e-mail notifications when new ADA information is available, 

visit the ADA Website’s home page and click the link near the top of the middle column.




ADA Information Line


800-514-0301 (Voice) and 800-514-0383 (TTY)

24 hours a day to order publications by mail.

M-W, F 9:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m., Th 12:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. (Eastern Time)

to speak with an ADA Specialist. All calls are confidential. 

For persons with disabilities, this publication is available in alternate formats.

Duplication of this document is encouraged. July 2011 

This is how a Therapy Dog is defined on numerous sites. Pay close attention to the areas I highlighted in red.
Right from the website of ILGHAUS:
"Q. If I have my dog made a therapy dog or a emotional support dog can it then live in a apartment that doesn’t allow dogs?
A. Therapy Dogs are pet dogs that can be owned by either disabled or non-disabled owners.
THERAPY DOG
Per Delta Society:
Therapy animals and their handlers are trained to provide specific human populations with appropriate contact with animals. They are usually the personal pets of the handlers and accompany their handlers to the sites they visit, but therapy animals may also reside at a facility. Animals must meet specific criteria for health, grooming and behavior. While managed by their handlers, their work is not handler-focused and instead provides benefits to others. 
http://www.deltasociety.org/Page.asp…ServiceTherapy
The owner/handler of a Therapy Dog does not have additional rights in Housing or Public Access over any other pet owner."
"Therapy Dogs are not Assistance or Service Dogs. Therapy Dogs are pet dogs with special training and of the proper temperament to work with their owner around and for other people."
I do not know if you are aware, but a mass majority of great Service Dog organizations also do not allow the dual role of Service/Therapy dog for good reason! It is DANGEROUS for the disabled handler to do this. 
Can a great Professional trainer and handler train a dog to do both without compromising the Service Dog training or the well-being of the dog? Honestly, the answer is yes and no, it will cause unnecessary added stress on the dog and on the handler as associative behaviors that will create conflict in the dog need to be looked out for 24/7. Can the average service dog handler or owner trainer do it without risk? No, they lack the experience to recognize associative behaviors by doing this and it may put their lives at risk. 
Service Dogs are for a disabled handler. They are not pets as defined by law nor should they be treated that way on any level by the public.
Therapy Dogs are as ILGHAUS even defined "Therapy Dogs are not Assistance or Service Dogs. Therapy Dogs are pet dogs with special training and of the proper temperament to work with their owner around and for other people."
ANY good working dog trainer will tell you how powerful association is when it comes to a dog and even more so when it comes to a working dog. Training itself is mostly based on associative behavior. 
When this subject reared its ugly head again, I contacted every working dog trainer I know and a lot of other Service Dog Organizations and a lot of other PROFESSIONAL Service Dog trainers. I thought I was out of the loop as claims that this IS in fact acceptable as apparently (according to the majority of the owner trainer crowd) the “handler” in this regard weather the dog was trained by a professional or owner trained knows what’s best for their dog. I passed this information on and got responses that ranged from hysterical laughs to “We won’t certify our dog if they go that route.” To “Yeah and I want my Service dog to be a Police dog too.. What? I can’t do that? You are discriminating! lol.” To “They just will not get it till something happens and they come back with a messed up dog.” “Don’t these people know how many dogs get messed up when they break SD training and they get treated as a pet?” Please forgive me, as I am not knocking all owner trainers. There are a lot of owner trainers that are responsible with their Service Dog and use them for the tasks they were intended for without creating conflict in the dog just to satisfy motivation driven purely by emotion vs. real professional working dog training guidance. Service Dogs are Service Dogs; Therapy Dogs are Therapy Dogs they were never meant to function in a duel role capacity both from a working dog training standpoint to a legal definition of both. 

From Pet Partners website formerly Delta Society:
“Are Pet Partners Therapy Animals certified or registered?

Pet Partner Therapy Animal teams are registered, not certified. Certification implies that Pet Partners has participated in the handler's and the animal's training. Whereas registration requires training and screening, Pet Partners does not certify that the team is trained to a certain level. Instead, the team is registered as having met minimum requirements
Furthermore, Pet Partners' commercial general liability insurance will be primary, i.e. it will provide coverage first. However, several notable exclusions exist. They are:
•Pet Partners' commercial general liability insurance does not provide coverage for either member of a Therapy Animal team causing a loss to other Pet Partners volunteers. Such losses are the personal responsibility of the Therapy Animal handler.”
In other words, we don’t know what we are doing for sure so if something happens to the training of your Service Dog or you in connection with the therapy work we are not responsible.
If you want your Service Dog to be a pet and participate in visiting Therapy Dog work, do yourself and your dog a favor. Retire the dog as a Service Dog and go for it. If visiting Therapy work means that much to you and it means more to you than the gift of having a Service Dog… so be it. Or you can Register your dog with someone other than TDI and take your chances.
Ursula A. Kempe, President of TDI has over 40 years of working dog training experience. This decision does not come from delusions or from political pressure nor will she fold under political pressure. 
“Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.” -Gandhi
Recourses: DOJ http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm Pet Partners AKA Delta Society http://www.petpartners.org/page.aspx?pid=267 ADAP (ILGHAUS is a part of) http://blog.workndog.org/adap/


----------



## Jax08

What exactly are you asking?


----------



## JakodaCD OA

michelle I don't think he's asking anything, he's explaining why service dogs should not be therapy dogs is my gist


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

Service Dog from that thread


----------



## SFGSSD

JakodaCD OA said:


> michelle I don't think he's asking anything, he's explaining why service dogs should not be therapy dogs is my gist


Yes it is

In a previous post on this forum the question of what is wrong with an active Service Dog Teamed with a disabled partner to also simultaneously function as a visiting therapy dog for other people.
This post explains in as much detail as possible the contradiction, conflict and dangers of doing so on multiple levels. I stated in a previous post that I would start a new thread on this subject as I was not the OP on the thread this discussion started and it was a little off topic. This post details why it is not acceptable and why and it is far from being “nothing” wrong with it, both from a legal definition standpoint and a working dog training standpoint. 
1. It is a dangerous combination.
2. It contradicts legal terms as a working Service Dog is NEVER a pet unless it is retired. Does it have down time? Yes, with the handler playing ball ect.. Not working for others as a pet. The focus of the dog should always be on the handler the dog was intended for. This is a dog for the disabled person it was teamed with, not for the enjoyment of the public. This is one of the reasons WHY they have public access and Therapy Dogs do not.
While I feel that the ongoing performance of a service dog is both the responsibility of the handler and the facility/trainer and even the sanctioning organization (if the school is sanctioned) it is clear with a good majority of Service Dog organizations that a duel role of Service Dog and Therapy Dog is not allowed with their dogs. I for one agree and it IS with good reason. It is dangerous for the disabled handler and can definitely compromise the training of the Service Dog. Numerous reports of dogs compromised by this duel exist in the industry. Not because of lack of training, in this case I agree 100% handler error and failing to comply with the guidelines of professional trainers and organizations on this subject.


----------



## msvette2u

> "Q. If I have my dog made a therapy dog or a emotional support dog can it then live in a apartment that doesn’t allow dogs?
> A. Therapy Dogs are pet dogs that can be owned by either disabled or non-disabled owners.


We had a situation here when I did animal control in which a woman claimed her pit bull (banned at that time from this town) was a therapy dog - for herself (she had mental illness).

The attorney for the city informed us she could choose any breed for her therapy dog, and this dog was not exempt (by virtue of being a "therapy dog") from the pit bull ban. She had to move the dog out of town, and/or move herself. 

By the definitions above, what she was saying isn't even legally legitimate, right? You can have a therapy dog that sees other people and comforts them, but not one for yourself, to make yourself feel better?

The reason I ask this is many folks I've come across will tell me "this is my therapy dog, I feel better when I pet it" or some such, and use that as justification to bring their dogs in stores, on airplanes, basically, any place dogs are normally not allowed.

The same with apartments, many people will try to claim their dog gives them therapy and therefore, even if dogs are banned at said apartment, they believe they can get a doctor's note to keep the dog?


----------



## wildo

SFGSSD said:


> 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.


I didn't realize the bolded, underlined line was in the ADA law. Wouldn't this line define an "emotional support dog?" I didn't think that emotional support dogs were considered service dogs. I knew that therapy dogs weren't.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

I agree - when a Service Dog with with their handler (the person that NEEDS the service the dog does) - they should be 100% focused on that person.

BUT ... If I have a Service Dog (let's say I'm blind) and my HUSBAND wants to take him to do therapy work - there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Just because a dog is a Service Dog that does not AUTOMATICALLY exclude them from being a Therapy Dog as well.


----------



## JohnD

Everyone knows that a blind person and others with disability has a right to enter any public place with a Trained and Licensed Service dog...

Sadly we have many people who seem to stretch the law to say they need their dog
to enter because i need him for therapy..These people just want to enter and make up their own laws.

Emotional support dogs???? Why not have a emotional support cats, pigs?? haha..
It make me feel better to have my dog or cat, etc.. with me!!!!

Service dogs are highly trained to offer a service to their owner...The dog helps the owner perform tacks they cound not do without the dog. In many cases the owner could not live as full of a life without the help of this service dog. 

The service dog does a lot more then just make the owner feel good! 
It helps them live.


----------



## wildo

JohnD- everyone _thinks_ they know that "trained and licensed" service dogs have access rights. But, at least according to the info that's been made clear in this forum:
1) The person with disabilities has the access rights for their dog (equipment). The dog has no access rights.
2) There is no licensing authority requirement for service dogs.

Subtle distinction, but a distinction none-the-less. Also, I believe there HAVE been stories reported of people bring non-dog animals in as emotional support animals! I faintly remember a story of a pigmy goat!? haha!


----------



## carmspack

_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._
I didn't realize the bolded, underlined line was in the ADA law. Wouldn't this line define an "emotional support dog?" I didn't think that emotional support dogs were considered service dogs. I knew that therapy dogs weren't. 
__________________

--- yes , they are Service Dogs which enables them to accompany the person everywhere - same as a guide dog .
The dogs go through extensive training and are certified -- by a person qualified to do so - as there are implications including insurance and liability . It is not a matter of handing over a stable friendly dog . York will be leaving me next week to start his journey for this very purpose.

"BUT ... If I have a Service Dog (let's say I'm blind) and my HUSBAND wants to take him to do therapy work - there's absolutely nothing wrong with that."

There IS. Saw it when shadowing trainers in urban portion of the certification process -- dogs were canned because someone , an admirer said ohh what a lovely dog , and the dog distracted and attracted --- . Taking the dog out to be petted and enjoying attention from others goes so much against the grain (devotion) for everything the dog was bred for selected for trained for , certified for and needs to do on a day to day basis.

Want a pet - get a pet -- want a therapy dog to go round to visit shut ins - get a suitable dog -- Service and Therapy are not the same.

Also , at least with organizations that I have dealt with , there are check ups to make sure no bad habits have been allowed to build up - almost like the required (in Canada at least) re-certification process of police service dogs.


----------



## carmspack

"The person with disabilities has the access rights for their dog (equipment). The dog has no access rights"

not entirely correct because dogs in training wearing authorized insignia with their foster - raising families , pre - certification and not handled by a needing person -- have access to public buildings and transport

been there done that -- dog in training allowed into restaurant - I was the raiser of that one


----------



## wildo

Carmen, I'm not in the know enough to argue the points. Are you referring to ADA law, or a Canadian version? That would be one distinction. Also, I do believe there have been a couple threads on SDIT and if I recall correctly (which I might not) the ADA law does not specifically cover SDIT. Or maybe it does so by deferring to the State. Something like that... But I thought (again, I maybe be off in my recollection) that it was really up to the establishment if they would allow a SDIT into their place. And most trainers pre-call to confirm with them. 

That was my understanding anyway.


----------



## carmspack

these were dogs provided for USA users and trained and certified by USA personnel. --- Sterling for one .

my experience in Canada has been with guide dogs - which also train and certifiy Service Dogs


----------



## Xeph

So, does this mean that a service dog should never have any interaction with anybody but the handler?


----------



## Xeph

Also, it is ALWAYS the handler, NOT the dog that has access.


----------



## SFGSSD

msvette2u said:


> We had a situation here when I did animal control in which a woman claimed her pit bull (banned at that time from this town) was a therapy dog - for herself (she had mental illness).
> 
> The attorney for the city informed us she could choose any breed for her therapy dog, and this dog was not exempt (by virtue of being a "therapy dog") from the pit bull ban. She had to move the dog out of town, and/or move herself.
> 
> By the definitions above, what she was saying isn't even legally legitimate, right? You can have a therapy dog that sees other people and comforts them, but not one for yourself, to make yourself feel better?
> 
> The reason I ask this is many folks I've come across will tell me "this is my therapy dog, I feel better when I pet it" or some such, and use that as justification to bring their dogs in stores, on airplanes, basically, any place dogs are normally not allowed.
> 
> The same with apartments, many people will try to claim their dog gives them therapy and therefore, even if dogs are banned at said apartment, they believe they can get a doctor's note to keep the dog?


Here is a link that may clear up the differences in terms:
Please Don't Pet Me


----------



## SFGSSD

wildo said:


> I didn't realize the bolded, underlined line was in the ADA law. Wouldn't this line define an "emotional support dog?" I didn't think that emotional support dogs were considered service dogs. I knew that therapy dogs weren't.


this may clear up differences in terms Please Don't Pet Me


----------



## SFGSSD

carmspack said:


> _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._
> I didn't realize the bolded, underlined line was in the ADA law. Wouldn't this line define an "emotional support dog?" I didn't think that emotional support dogs were considered service dogs. I knew that therapy dogs weren't.
> __________________
> 
> --- yes , they are Service Dogs which enables them to accompany the person everywhere - same as a guide dog .
> The dogs go through extensive training and are certified -- by a person qualified to do so - as there are implications including insurance and liability . It is not a matter of handing over a stable friendly dog . York will be leaving me next week to start his journey for this very purpose.
> 
> "BUT ... If I have a Service Dog (let's say I'm blind) and my HUSBAND wants to take him to do therapy work - there's absolutely nothing wrong with that."
> 
> There IS. Saw it when shadowing trainers in urban portion of the certification process -- dogs were canned because someone , an admirer said ohh what a lovely dog , and the dog distracted and attracted --- . Taking the dog out to be petted and enjoying attention from others goes so much against the grain (devotion) for everything the dog was bred for selected for trained for , certified for and needs to do on a day to day basis.
> 
> Want a pet - get a pet -- want a therapy dog to go round to visit shut ins - get a suitable dog -- Service and Therapy are not the same.
> 
> Also , at least with organizations that I have dealt with , there are check ups to make sure no bad habits have been allowed to build up - almost like the required (in Canada at least) re-certification process of police service dogs.


Well said!
Carmen, this is stemming from the owner trainer crowd and political/emotional motivation. Some people get intimidated and do the wrong thing just to avoid the drama from that crowd. Sad, but true. 

I may know a lot about medical law. But I am not going to tell people especialy doctors the do's and don’ts when it comes to surgery. I'll leave that to the professionals and others should to. Service Dogs are considered medical devices and it makes me cringe when people that are not doctors want to play with scalpels on a patient.


----------



## SFGSSD

carmspack said:


> "The person with disabilities has the access rights for their dog (equipment). The dog has no access rights"
> 
> not entirely correct because dogs in training wearing authorized insignia with their foster - raising families , pre - certification and not handled by a needing person -- have access to public buildings and transport
> 
> been there done that -- dog in training allowed into restaurant - I was the raiser of that one


 In some states (Thank GOD!) a SDIT only has access when accompanied by a Service Dog trainer from a recognised Service Dog business/facility. 
Some states reqire trainers/businesses to have a license. 
Some states its a free for all.


----------



## SFGSSD

Service Dogs for disabled people have turned into a political circus. Non working dog trainers bringing a Pet mentality to the scean is causing misdirection to a dangerous level.


----------



## SFGSSD

JohnD said:


> Everyone knows that a blind person and others with disability has a right to enter any public place with a Trained and Licensed Service dog....


 By law trained to directly mitigate the disability. Federal law does not reqire licencing. Some States reqire a license, but it is not a Federal law... Yet. If and when that day comes, it will help tremendously to clean up the mess that is in the SD industry.


----------



## ILGHAUS

SFGSSD, if you are going to quote me from other sources I would appreciate that you give the link so that people can read exactly what were my words and what words I was quoting from others. This would also give them the chance to see in what context I was speaking.

Thank you.


----------



## Castlemaid

ILGHAUS said:


> SFGSSD, if you are going to quote me from other sources I would appreciate that you give the link so that people can read exactly what were my words and what words I was quoting from others. This would also give them the chance to see in what context I was speaking.
> 
> Thank you.


Yes please, as per board rules:


> Please do not quote a member's post out of context, using a portion, or portions, of the post that gives it new meaning, one the initial poster never intended to convey. Also, should you feel it necessary to use a quote from a post on this board somewhere else, wherever that may be, please obtain the explicit permission of the author prior to using the quote. This eliminates the possibility of our members being misrepresented without their knowledge.


SSGSFD, did you get explicit permission from TJ to quote and post her material here?


----------



## ILGHAUS

From a post of SFGSSD

"This is how a Therapy Dog is defined on numerous sites. Pay close attention to the areas I highlighted in red.
Right from the website of ILGHAUS:
"Q. If I have my dog made a therapy dog or a emotional support dog can it then live in a apartment that doesn’t allow dogs?
A. Therapy Dogs are pet dogs that can be owned by either disabled or non-disabled owners."

Please note this is a section titled: 
Therapy Dog or Emotional Support Dog in Rental and not a discussion on Service Dogs being tested as Therapy Dogs.


----------



## ILGHAUS

I have already posted in another thread to be careful of how posts are made on this topic.

I just do want to point out that there is no current Federal or any State Laws that I am aware of that do not allow a Service Dog to be tested or registered to be used as a Therapy Dog.

So while some may have the opinion that it should not be - please keep in mind that it is an opinion and not current law.

As to this from a post by SFGSSD:
"If you want your Service Dog to be a pet and participate in visiting Therapy Dog work, do yourself and your dog a favor. Retire the dog as a Service Dog and go for it. If visiting Therapy work means that much to you and it means more to you than the gift of having a Service Dog… so be it. Or you can Register your dog with someone other than TDI and take your chances.
Ursula A. Kempe, President of TDI has over 40 years of working dog training experience. This decision does not come from delusions or from political pressure nor will she fold under political pressure. "


Until recently - I believe the change was made in 2012, Ursula Kempe/TDI *did* allow SDs to be tested and registered with their organization as Therapy Dogs.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

while I don't much about the politics, laws , regs regarding SD's,,I'm getting that there is no Federal or State Laws prohibiting someone with an SD to do /certify their dog to be a Therapy dog as well.

So being a TD dog & SD dog is basically just considered "taboo" by some ?

My opinion, ridiculous, I think a trained dog can distinguish one job from the another.

Example, a dog trained in agility & obedience 'knows' the difference between walking into the agility ring and walking into an obedience ring and what is required in each.

I also don't believe for one minute that the majority of people who have SD's, don't interact with them in a "pet" manner at some point during their day.

While I do think a dog (SD)that is working should be just that, in working mode, not bothered by people, outside distractions, I do think a dog smart enough to be trained in this type of work, would also be smart enough to know when they are in work mode and when they are in down time/some other mode..

ANd I also agree, when quoting anything, please provide a link or the entire context of the quote so we may see/understand it fully


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

carmspack said:


> There IS. Saw it when shadowing trainers in urban portion of the certification process -- dogs were canned because someone , an admirer said ohh what a lovely dog , and the dog distracted and attracted --- . Taking the dog out to be petted and enjoying attention from others goes so much against the grain (devotion) for everything the dog was bred for selected for trained for , certified for and needs to do on a day to day basis.


So Service Dogs are NEVER allowed to get attention from anyone other than the handler? Sorry but I find that hard to believe.

What if the handler has to go into the hospital for an operation? Does their SD just sit at home with no-one to feed it or let it out or give it any attention? What about those people that have a SD AND a pet dog?

What about those people that have a SD and a family with little kids? No-one in that family is allowed to interact with the SD?

In my opinion, a Service Dog that is not allowed to have any contact from anyone else because it may confuse them - that is a poorly trained Service Dog.


----------



## SFGSSD

Nothing is being taken out of context here. I will clarify even further. 
1. Therapy Dogs DO NOT have general public access with or without a disabled handler.
2. Therapy Dogs although they may be considered a type of Working Dog they have minimal training in comparison. They are considered to be well behaved PETS when it comes right down to it. 
3. Is there a Federal or State LAW that prevents Service Dogs from being registered as a Therapy Dog? NO (No Law was stopping anyone with a driver’s license to drive 180+MPH on the Autobahn in Germany but that does not mean it is not dangerous to the inexperienced driver or dangerous at all. This is information can be relayed by any professional driver, but what do they know right?)
4. Fact: A good majority of Service Dog organizations and Professional trainers DO NOT support the notion that there is nothing wrong with a Service Dog also functioning in a duel role as a visiting Therapy Dog from a training and conditioning prospective. (The dog is not trained well enough? The Dog is not smart enough? That’s a pretty bold statement considering where this is coming from.)
Therapy Dogs from this forum:
http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/guide-therapy-service-dogs/181979-therapy-dogs.html#post2471643
I am very concerned that advice is given in this capacity by people that should not be giving this kind of advice. (Thank you ILGHAUS for pointing out that it is your opinion and not current law) 
Although what Carmen and I are saying can be also considered opinion, it is also a professional opinion that is supported by more working dog professionals within the Service Dog industry and elsewhere than I can count. If you want to get an outside prospective on this, call a major Service Dog organization and speak with their training director yourself.


----------



## ILGHAUS

> I am very concerned that advice is given in this capacity by people that should not be giving this kind of advice. (Thank you ILGHAUS for pointing out that it is your opinion and not current law)


Not quite what I said but ....


----------



## Blanketback

I was always under the impression that a working dog should be ignored - the majority of service dogs I've seen have been guide dogs. When I've admired service dogs, talking to their owners, I've been told not to interact with their dogs. I did meet a service dog in a restaurant this summer, and the owner was encouraging people to pet the dog. In all my years, that was the only one I've ever seen who was allowed to interact with strangers.

My previous GSD was a Therapy Dog, and he was a much-loved pet. I enjoyed sharing him with others - but I'll be honest, if I actually relied on him to provide me with a 'service' (as it fits under the definition of service dog) I wouldn't be so generous. I would worry that he might somehow be corrupted and be incapable of performing his duties 100%. Not only that, I wouldn't want him gallivanting around town without me.

If I was in the position to visit with my dog, then I'd worry that I was asking too much of him. Visiting is tiring and a job in itself, with the visits being timed at 45 min. for the dog's sake.


----------



## ILGHAUS

Okay, one more heads up folks. 

Be careful posting as there have been a couple of things said that can be read as coming close to a board violation.


----------



## Shade

My friend's husband is blind and has a lab for his seeing eye dog. Once the harness goes on Jubilee is all work, and he asks people to ignore her so she can focus on her job

Once the harness comes off she's a happy lab ready to be loved and play

If I had to rely on a service dog I would do the same, ask people to ignore and let them focus


----------



## ILGHAUS

Everyone has the freedom to their opinion on this topic including handlers of SDs, trainers of SDs, SD organizations, blog writers, Facebook page admin, etc. but they do not have the right to present that opinion as law based on/or use any part of the ADA or the Dept. of Justice Regulatory Law.

Once again as I did about a year ago, *I just got off the phone with an ADA Specialist in the Disability Rights Division at the Dept. of Justice.* 

*The Dept. of Justice has not made any Regulatory Law nor is there any statement in the ADA against a handler with a disability testing their Service Dog, having their SD registered/certified as a Therapy Dog or using their Service Dog as the canine member of their team. *

This should be about the end of this discussion on the legality and as such any contrary opinions should be read as such. Those who have a different opinion may feel free to sent a letter or email to the DOJ and request that this matter be looked into for a possible change at the next Regulatory Revision on Service Dogs. Or a request can be sent to a member of Congress or the House requesting such to be added to the next update of the ADA.


----------



## Andaka

As the owner/trainer/operator of 4 service dogs, I have done therapy work with all of them. They know the difference between work and play, and the differnece in the ends of work asked of them. These dogs have been show dogs, oebidence dogs, agility dogs, herding dogs, and therapy dogs. Dogs are discerning enough to know the difference between work and not work. 

Tag was one of the best show dogs in the country, yet he could come out of the show ring and escort me back to the hotel. He would lay on the floor of my office and bring me things that I would drop. When I broke my shoulder he layed in the living room while I slept in the recliner -- he would help me pull the sheet up to cover me, help me walk to the bathroom and get up from the toilet. Later he would let me pull myself up from a couch by pulling on his collar. All of these tasks had commands that went with them. Meanwhile, he was being shown in conformation (earn 100+ Best of Breeds), and Rally (got his RAE2) as well as visiting with school children teaching them how not to get bit by a strange dog.

Dogs even do things for people that they weren't trained to do. Dogs save people that have fallen thru the ice. Dogs lay down with children to keep them worm until help comes. Dogs are smarter then we give them credit for.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

SFGSSD said:


> (The dog is not trained well enough? The Dog is not smart enough? That’s a pretty bold statement considering where this is coming from.)


If you are referring to what I posted - I stand by my statement. If a Service Dog cannot distinguish between working time and non-working time, then - in *MY *opinion - I say the dog is not suited/trained well enough to BE a Service Dog.

And Andaka's post is a perfect example of what I'm saying. A well trained Service Dogs DOES know the difference between work time and non-work time.


----------



## Xeph

Strauss accompanies me to the National Dog Show in Phiy every year. He alternates between schmoozing with the public and getting me around the expo center.

When his harness is off, he enjoys all the attention he gets, ways his tail, and kisses children. The moment his harness is on, he is all business, and he does his job.

He's not a idiot. He knows the difference.

I agree with Laurie. If a dog can't tell the difference between on duty and off, it shouldn't be working.

I've asked several times if a service dog shouldn't be interacted with by anybody other than the handler. Never got an answer.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

kudos to the above posts Daphne is a perfect example of her dogs knowing the difference and being able to do it all Isn't that what a german shepherd "should" be? I think so

Laurie said it better than I, but I agree


> If a Service Dog cannot distinguish between working time and non-working time, then - in *MY *opinion - I say the dog is not suited/trained well enough to BE a Service Dog


----------



## ILGHAUS

Now that it has been verified that there are *still no Federal laws* to stand in way for anyone who wishes to test with their SD to work as a Therapy Dog team, I would also like to pass on that I have spoke via phone today to an assistant to the Director at Pet Partners formerly known as the Delta Society that their policy of allowing a PWD and their SD to test together remains.
Their website is at Pet Partners® ? Touching lives through human?animal interactions - Pet Partners 


Though it is an older study and report some may find it interesting to read:

Service and Therapy Work: Can One Dog Do Both? By Debi Davis, Originally 
published in Alert, National Service Dog Center®
Newsletter Vol. 10, No. 1 1999. Edited for the web and updates.

Some quotes from the article are:

"Service dogs generally interact with others only when directed to do so by their handlers."

AAA/AAT (therapy) dogs are trained to do tasks for people other than their handlers, interacting with them as directed by their handlers."

To read the above article in full please go to
http://www.petpartners.org/document.doc?id=225


----------



## martemchik

Here's my question...if said service dog that is inside a place that its allowed to be, does something stupid (a bite) isn't the handler or licensing/training organization (if there is one) still liable for any damage the dog does? All the law says is that the dog is allowed to be in places where a pet dog is generally not allowed.

When it comes to therapy dogs, the TDi certification is just an insurance policy against small claims that might arise if the dog scratches or bumps someone and they get injured. These dogs need permission to enter the premises where the "therapy" is being performed. So in a situation where an SD might also be a TD, if the handler wants to use him as a therapy dog in say a hospital...I'm assuming they would still ask if that's alright and make plans to visit on a certain day. They wouldn't just barge in, claim their dog is an SD (which it is) and start going into random rooms with their dog because its a TD as well. In most places around here, they don't even ask for the certificate, they just trust that our club group that does the demonstrations and visits only brings dogs that are suitable for that kind of work.

Therapy dog has grown to have a meaning that is not what it truly is. A therapy dog is really just a well trained/well socialized dog, that can go around other people and just with its presence make them feel better. People have glorified it into this middle ground between pet and SD which it isn't. A TD is a pet, just one that's got a little training and backing behind it which allows it to act civilized in a hospital/assisted living facility/school/ect.

Those people that call their pets TDs just to take them into stores/restaurants/public places where pets aren't allowed are using the lack of knowledge of who ever would stop them in order to BREAK THE LAW.

I also see no issue with a dog being SD and TD. I've been around an SD in training for the last year, and although he's younger than my boy as soon as the work word is said he's all business, and as soon as he's released he's a puppy. He's played/rough housed with my boy and he gets love from all our club members (after he is released). It's just training in my opinion.


----------



## ILGHAUS

martemchik


> Here's my question...if said service dog that is inside a place that its allowed to be, does something stupid (a bite) isn't the handler or licensing/training organization (if there is one) still liable for any damage the dog does?


That is correct in that whoever is owner of record would be responsible for any costs. Some homeowners insurance policies will cover bites or other injuries by a SD. It is important that before someone takes any dog out into the public that they know under what circumstances they are covered.


----------



## martemchik

ILGHAUS said:


> martemchik
> 
> 
> That is correct in that whoever is owner of record would be responsible for any costs. Some homeowners insurance policies will cover bites or other injuries by a SD. It is important that before someone takes any dog out into the public that they know under what circumstances they are covered.


So what's the point of arguing about this? Liability isn't waived in either situation. There is no affect either way whether the dog is functioning as a service dog or a therapy dog. If we're worried about that dog possibly getting confused...that's the handler's problem. Sure, it might give a bad wrap to all SDs or TDs from a negative publicity point of view, but at the end of the day its the handler being stupid.

I just personally want to prevent the use of "therapy dog" as some sort of glorified animal. It's kind of blending with "emotional support dog" and so people are taking advantage of the confusion over these terms. In my opinion, most well trained dogs can easily be taken into places and passed off as an SD. Throw a vest on it, and just make it heel the whole time and no one will know the difference. You're taking a risk if your dog bites someone, but if you know it won't bite anyone, there is no risk.

Since there is no licensing necessary it leaves glaring holes open for people to abuse the system. I also know why there is no licensing, and don't think the government needs to stick their nose into this either since they would just make it harder for disabled people that aren't trying to work the system. But the majority of people don't abuse the system anyways and this whole TD thing and emotional support dog thing is making it a little easier to feel like you're not breaking the law to some people.


----------



## ILGHAUS

> So what's the point of arguing about this? Liability isn't waived in either situation. There is no affect either way whether the dog is functioning as a service dog or a therapy dog.


The point of this thread is that the OP does not believe that a PWD and their SD should be allowed to be tested, registered, and used as a Therapy Dog team.

He has posted his opinions on why he believes it is unsafe for the handler to use their SD and how he believes it will interfere with a SDs training to do visits or do other TD type events.

About a year or less ago Therapy Dogs International (TDI), one of the 3 larger national Therapy Dog organizations changed their long standing position on allowing a PWD and their SD to be registered through TDI and the OP stands with this change.

As I have stated, it is OK that any of our posters holds this opinion. I just don't want anyone to try to use the ADA (the act itself) or the Dept. of Justice Regulatory Law as a basis to back up their opinions against using a SD as a tested and registered Therapy Dog. As I posted here, I verified this afternoon that the Dept. of Justice, Division of Civil Rights is not against using a SD in this manner and that there is nothing in the ADA - original or revised - against this practice. 

I also called to see if Pet Partners (was Delta Society) had any plans to change their policies on allowing SDs to be tested and registered. I was assured that they had no plans to disallow SDs in their testing. 

I did not have time to re-contact Therapy Dogs Incorporated (TDInc.) today but had done so last year. I have not heard of them changing their policy of allowing the testing of a SD. 

So the bottom line is that when going through this thread, *the reader must not consider any reference to any Fed. Law passed by Congress (The ADA, original or revised) or any Regulatory Law (Dept. of Justice) as valid backing to a personal opinion against the testing and registering of a SD to be used as a Therapy Dog.*


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

martemchik said:


> So what's the point of arguing about this?


We are discussing (not arguing  ) on whether or not a Service Dog can ALSO do work as a Therapy Dog. It has nothing to do with insurance or laws or any of those things.

In *MY *opinion it comes down to this question - is the dog *ABLE *to handle both jobs. Not at the same time, of course, because the dogs job as a Service Dog should always come first.


----------



## martemchik

Alright then...well if the training is in question, usually they're trained by very experienced people and those people know what they're doing. If they think the dog can handle both, why not train it to do both? I can't picture a situation where a service dog that isn't a guide dog, wouldn't be able to be both a TD and a SD.

I've seen how the organizations train their dogs and they know what they're doing much more than any of us do, and to question their theories is kind of dumb when they have had a lot of success and we are just enthusiasts on a forum.


----------



## ILGHAUS

> we are just enthusiasts on a forum.


Maybe not .... membership here consists of breeders, trainers, handlers, advocates, etc. along with "enthusiasts".


----------



## JohnD

I may not be understanding your points....But..

American with Disabilities HAVE THE RIGHT. Covered by State and Fed law..

The law. " Permits people who are blind to be accompanied by their guide dog in public places." ADA HOTLINE NUMBER 1-800-514-0301

You can also chech out GUIDE DOG WEB SITE for more information on the the rights....Their phone number is 1-800-295-4050
Their web site is www.guidedogs.com


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

martemchik said:


> If they think the dog can handle both, why not train it to do both?


There really isn't any 'training' for being a Therapy Dog.

In order to be a Therapy Dog, a dog must be able to do the basics - sit, down, stay and come. They must have a stable temperament and not be afraid of loud noises, people yelling or things like wheelchairs or crutches. They must be ok with people grabbing them, pulling on them and maybe even hitting them (people with coordination control problems might accidentally hit the dog with their arm).

Of my current pack of seven dogs, four of them could qualify for being a Therapy Dog. I don't do it because I travel for work and don't havbe the time to go to places with the dogs.


----------



## martemchik

Lauri & The Gang said:


> There really isn't any 'training' for being a Therapy Dog.
> 
> In order to be a Therapy Dog, a dog must be able to do the basics - sit, down, stay and come. They must have a stable temperament and not be afraid of loud noises, people yelling or things like wheelchairs or crutches. They must be ok with people grabbing them, pulling on them and maybe even hitting them (people with coordination control problems might accidentally hit the dog with their arm).
> 
> Of my current pack of seven dogs, four of them could qualify for being a Therapy Dog. I don't do it because I travel for work and don't havbe the time to go to places with the dogs.


Oh yeah...I know that. No doubt about that one. Solid temperament with no ticks and just basic obedience and you have a very good therapy dog. That's why I don't get the issue with an SD being a TD, SD dogs are some of the best trained dogs out there, they'd easily be able to perform the tasks of a TD.


----------



## martemchik

ILGHAUS said:


> Maybe not .... membership here consists of breeders, trainers, handlers, advocates, etc. along with "enthusiasts".


Well yeah but even the people you mentioned are really glorified "enthusiasts." I just don't think that most of us have the experience with service dogs to make these judgment calls. I think they should all go on a case by case basis but in my opinion if a service dog can't "turn off" and act like a therapy dog, that dog probably has no business being a therapy dog. I just don't see any "danger" in doing that.

There is just really no "downside" to a SD working as a TD. I don't know why TDi decided not to register working SDs anymore, but as far as what I know about the organization and also the places around me that set up therapy dog visitations, they could care less about the certification and just trust the handler to be ethical enough to not mislead them on the obedience or abilities of their dog.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

martemchik said:


> That's why I don't get the issue with an SD being a TD, SD dogs are some of the best trained dogs out there, they'd easily be able to perform the tasks of a TD.


I 110% agree!


----------



## ILGHAUS

martemchik said:


> ... I think they should all go on a case by case basis ...


:thumbup: And that is what I am advocating for.


----------



## SFGSSD

Service Dogs can very well "Do the work" they usually become Therapy Dogs when they wash out of a program. That is not the point. 

The real danger in allowing the dual role is the degrading in the service dog training. This degradation is based on associative behaviors that are conflicting with the service dog training. I just got off the phone with the head trainer at Service Dogs of Florida and a trainer at East Cost Assistance Dogs. They do not allow their dogs to be in a duel role as they recognize the dangers in doing so.

The other issue is that this is mainly directed at the owner trainer crowd. These people for the most part lack the experience to handle a duel role without compromising the training there Service Dog is mainly intended for. A lot of them can barely handle the one role never mind managing two while looking out for associative behaviors.

When you are emotionally attached to your dog like you are to your children, you believe with all your heart that your kid can do anything The reality of the true limitations are eclipsed by emotion... then the excuses come rolling in. When you give advice or say "Nothing is wrong with it" you are not telling the whole truth. When an inexperienced handler takes this advice to heart along with the forgiving mindset of this is my baby. You’re asking for trouble. 
If I gave this kind of advice “Nothing is wrong with your dog being a Service Dog and a visiting Therapy Dog.” as a Professional… and something happened that caused injury to the training of the Service Dog and the disabled person taking this advice, I could be sued and I would not blame them one bit. I would even let them hit me over the head. I know better and a lot of other professionals know better. 

I spoke with the DOJ myself today. Their official position on this is that they do not have a position on it.



My position and what I think on this is what I originally posted. 

The Definition of a Service Dog as I posted stands.

The Definition of a Therapy Dog stands as well.
The reason this should not be combined stands as well.


----------



## carmspack

yeah --"These people for the most part lack the experience to handle a duel role without compromising the training there Service Dog is mainly intended for. A lot of them can barely handle the one role never mind managing two while looking out for associative behaviors"

oh well -- hang around


----------



## Xeph

It's dual, not duel. Sorry, it was really bugging me.


----------



## SFGSSD

Xeph said:


> It's dual, not duel. Sorry, it was really bugging me.


 Dually noted:laugh:


----------



## ILGHAUS

On this topic I have stated that I believe that all here are entitled to their personal opinions and I have given mine and I have stressed that there is no Federal Law (via Congress or Regulatory) against testing SDs to be evaluated for registration or certification to be used as a TD.

I have several last personal opinions to leave on this thread -- I would hope and I really believe that via the procedures and policies of training, first evaluation and then re-testing, that a reputable Therapy Dog organization (which also requires a statement from the vet on health and their professional opinion on the suitability of the dog) would be able to weed out any dog or human of a potential team be they a SD, companion dog, or a PWD or not. I also believe that if a dog was showing stress or unsuitable behaviours that the handler was ignoring that either someone else present such as an employee or fellow organization team member would step up and address the situation just as they would for any other team. 

It is also my opinion that:
1) any PWD that is able to go through any required training and testing of an organization, 
2) is able to get their dog to a location in proper attire and grooming as the requirements of their organization and under the policies of the place they are attending, and 
3) meets any other policy of either their organization or the location that they are attending
... Should be accepted as having the same reasoning ability on safety issues and the same ability to know if it is time to leave the activity for the day or know when it is time to retire their dog from therapy duties. I also believe that a PWD should be given the same acceptance as anyone else to know when their dog is suffering a slide in needed training or acceptable behavior of any portion in their life. 

The above are my opinions based in large part through not only advocating for the dogs but for their handlers as well, and also in extending my concern to the safety and needs of the community that any such team goes into. 

So with all the above said, I see no reason to restate what I have already said and will only continue to read this thread as a Mod.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

Ok, let me ask this.

Say a person gets a service dog from you (OP), what if that person decides to TD certify their dog, how are you going to know if they don't tell you or how would you deal with that?

Take the dog back? Just curious.

Once a person "purchases" a Service Dog isn't it owned by that person and the seller really has no 'right' to the dog after that?

And if you think the majority of SD owners treat their dogs like "just workers" I think your sadly mistaken. No, they may not 'baby' their dogs, but I'm sure, again the majority, feel they are beloved members of their family and also treated as such.


----------



## SFGSSD

JakodaCD OA said:


> Ok, let me ask this.
> 
> Say a person gets a service dog from you (OP), what if that person decides to TD certify their dog, how are you going to know if they don't tell you or how would you deal with that?
> 
> Take the dog back? Just curious.
> 
> Once a person "purchases" a Service Dog isn't it owned by that person and the seller really has no 'right' to the dog after that?
> 
> And if you think the majority of SD owners treat their dogs like "just workers" I think your sadly mistaken. No, they may not 'baby' their dogs, but I'm sure, again the majority, feel they are beloved members of their family and also treated as such.


With my dogs, it does not matter if it is a dog that I purchased or supplied at no cost to the disabled handler from donations or it is a dog trained through my owner trainer program. The disabled person owns the dog when training is complete or earlier if the dog itself is purchased first. 
I certify the dog has completed the training and is performing within acceptable tolerance of 90% and above during the day and 80% and above at night (sleeping hours) and 100% day or night by second command. 
When the Service Dog is with its partner and living with them full time, the handler is given strict instructions on how to maintain the dogs training. A schedule of games the handler is to play with the dog is given and these games are designed to maintain the performance of the dog within acceptable tolerance. While out in public the dog is working 100% of the time and is not to be petted, or interacted with by others. The dog is to focus on the handler and its job. While at home, the dog is also to focus on its job and the games that are in place and designed to exercise the dog as well as maintain performance. If the dog must exercise and have down time away from the home or (out in public such as a field or dog social) It is one place and one place only that the dog is allowed to turn off away from home. 
If one of the recipients of my dogs and/or training does not follow my guidelines and treats his/her Service Dog as a pet and allows others to do so as well, the dog will more than likely not pass recertification. They will still own the dog but it will no longer be certified when the dog is re-tested annually for certification.(Yes certification is not required by federal law YET) Issues with the Games or performance in general is to be brought to our attention immediately. Our number one priority in this regard is that our dogs are performing for the disabled handler with the highest level of precision and excellence.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

thanks for answering.

Couple more Q's if you don't mind, its always a learning experience

Do you yourself, meet up with clients say, during the year to brush up/make sure the dogs are up to par (sorry bad choice of words, but couldn't think of another),,

How long are clients in training with you and their dog?? Do you go to them, do they go to you?

Just curious how many dogs you've certified thru your program?
thanks


----------



## Xeph

> Dually noted


This would be duly noted! Isn't English fun? LOL


----------



## JeaneneR

SFGSSD- I can understand where you're coming from but as the handler of my third service dog and being in the middle of training my fourth I respectfully disagree that it is an undue burden on the dog to also fill the role of Therapy dog. It is the duty of the handler to make sure that their dog is not stressed and that their training and behavior doesn't slip but that needs to be a choice made by the handler based on their dog. 

And it really is a case by case issue... my current dog loves to work and is completely handler focused but in most cases could care less about other people. He would get no joy and a great deal of stress if I forced him to do Therapy work. 

My service dog before that loved people and her greatest joy following service work was making people smile. She was very active in therapy work and brought a lot of joy to a lot of people and I hate to think that that could have been denied to her by people who made blanket policies. 

Each dog is different, and depending on the dog there's no reason that they can't enjoy being there for other people when they are off duty. 

A handler may not always have the training that the trainer does but they are the ones who live by their dogs and must be completely in tune with their dog. No matter if they're owner trained or trained by a program the handler should have the information to make the best decision for themselves and their dogs. 

I've been a service dog handler for a very long time and apprenticed with some of the best trainers on the east coast in my opinion, and I think it's wrong for a therapy dog organization to make a policy that would keep one of my dogs from doing something that they love.


----------



## SFGSSD

Xeph said:


> This would be duly noted! Isn't English fun? LOL


I apologies for any spelling or grammatical errors, I am a dog trainer after all and not an English major or a journalist. :laugh:


----------



## SFGSSD

JeaneneR said:


> SFGSSD- I can understand where you're coming from but as the handler of my third service dog and being in the middle of training my fourth I respectfully disagree that it is an undue burden on the dog to also fill the role of Therapy dog.


If you truly understood this position from a professional working dog training standpoint, you would also understand that stress and stress induced by conflict is tolling on the dog. I see your other post in this forum and in that regard we are on the same page. We can continue this conversation there.


----------



## SFGSSD

JakodaCD OA said:


> thanks for answering.
> 
> Couple more Q's if you don't mind, its always a learning experience
> 
> Do you yourself, meet up with clients say, during the year to brush up/make sure the dogs are up to par (sorry bad choice of words, but couldn't think of another),,
> 
> How long are clients in training with you and their dog?? Do you go to them, do they go to you?
> 
> Just curious how many dogs you've certified thru your program?
> thanks


Yes we do meet up with clients to make sure there dog is functioning properly periodically. I do this for any type of training not just Service Dogs. My clients can also call me any time to address issued that they may encounter even after the training is complete. I do this at no extra charge if something out of the ordinary happens. If the client however does not follow directions and recommendations and continues to have issues from their own negligence, I do charge for the extra time that should not be spent in the first place.:blush:

How long does it take to train? For Service Dogs, it is over 2000 hours for the dog and over 200 for the handler. This equates to 1-1.5 years on average for both my owner training program and dogs that I provide fully trained. This is ultimately contingent upon the dog and the handler’s individual learning pace. *NOTE Owner trainers get just as much (if not more) training as the dog does.

How many have I personally certified as a Service Dog? 18, How many dogs have I trained or been involved with as far as the training is concerned? 100’s I am not a big org, although I have 25+ years of working dog training experience, I have focused on training Service Dogs for disabled people mainly for only the past 4 years. I believe in quality over quality. What my late father and I was seeing in the Service Dog field (poorly trained program dogs and handlers as well as the poorly trained owner trained Service Dogs and the fake ones) and the fact that disabilities are something that is within my family from myself, my father, nieces, nephews cousins, it is something I take personally and very seriously. 

I am not a politician; I believe that the product speaks for itself. One of my clients agreed to allow me to post the entire public access test (video) he will go through soon on line. This video will be posted at the end of January early February at the latest.

I wish I could help more people that need Service Dogs however at this time, the funding and the competent help I need to expand is lacking. Either way, I would rather put out 4-6 great dogs a year than 50+ that only 10 would be acceptable to my standards of performance.
While I appreciate the questions and interest in what I do, please try to stay on topic of the original post. If you have unrelated questions please feel free to contact me directly or start a new thread. Thank You.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

SFGSSD said:


> If you truly understood this position from a professional working dog training standpoint, you would also understand that stress and stress induced by conflict is tolling on the dog.


I still can't understand how you can be so adamant about this when you have had several Service Dog handlers tell you that their dogs did both with no problems.

I agree with JeaneneR - it all depends on the dog (even for those that are NOT Service Dogs).


----------



## SFGSSD

Lauri & The Gang said:


> I still can't understand how you can be so adamant about this when you have had several Service Dog handlers tell you that their dogs did both with no problems.
> 
> I agree with JeaneneR - it all depends on the dog (even for those that are NOT Service Dogs).


It is not just the dog it is also the handler as I explained in my original post. "did both with no problems" is the issue that is being ignored by the masses that look at dog training and there dog through rose colored glasses. :smirk:



Should this be on a case by case basis? I am on the fence with that one as the word "Discrimination" has been used in connection with this. 



I can send multiple professional working dog trainers to back my position here as well and not just anonymously. The suggestion that there is ABSOLUTLY nothing wrong with this practice is false. It is that position that I am standing firm on as inexperienced people can get the wrong impression by that statement. How would you feel if someone took the advice that “Nothing is wrong with it” and something happened that caused injury or death to the SD handler because of it? Would you take responsibility for the advice you gave? Would any of you personally take responsibility for giving the nothing is wrong with it advice?


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

SFGSSD said:


> Would any of you personally take responsibility for giving the nothing is wrong with it advice?


Not as long as it was coupled with the "as long as your dog is CAPABLE" statement.

You made a blanket statement - a Service Dog cannot/should not be a Therapy Dog. I challenge that blanket statement.

Heck - you advocate a raw diet. What would you do if a dog choked to death on a raw turkey neck?

There is nothing in their world that is 100% guaranteed - no matter what the salesmen say.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

SFGSSD said:


> I can send multiple professional working dog trainers to back my position here as well and not just anonymously. The suggestion that there is ABSOLUTLY nothing wrong with this practice is false.


I'd take the word of an actual Service Dog *OWNER/HANDLER* over any number of trainers any day.

And I don't have much regard for trainers who speak in absolutes. People who say "My way is the ONLY way" are not open to new learning.

One thing I pride myself on as a trainer is to try all sorts of different ways to teach things until I find the way that works for my learners. One way does not always work for EVERY learner.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

I found this video on the Canine Companions for Independence website. To me it shows that a Service Dog can be handled by other people, play with other dogs and do things OTHER than just service work all the time:

Hearing Dogs - Canine Companions for Independence

Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the video.


----------



## SFGSSD

Lauri & The Gang said:


> Not as long as it was coupled with the "as long as your dog is CAPABLE" statement.
> 
> You made a blanket statement - a Service Dog cannot/should not be a Therapy Dog. I challenge that blanket statement.
> 
> Heck - you advocate a raw diet. What would you do if a dog choked to death on a raw turkey neck?
> 
> There is nothing in their world that is 100% guaranteed - no matter what the salesmen say.


I do advocate for an all-natural raw diet but I will not say there is no risk at all especially to the masses that may get the wrong impression of what I said. And if I did say there was no risk at all and something happened, I would feel terrible.
By stating the truth that there is risk in doing so, (and there is) It cautions people that have a false impression that they and their dog can do anything without the real experience needed to back that up. I would also challenge those that say that they have no problems to take a unbiased PAT to make sure what they are saying is actual fact vs. what they think.


----------



## SFGSSD

Lauri & The Gang said:


> I'd take the word of an actual Service Dog *OWNER/HANDLER* over any number of trainers any day.


OK the next time a dog is compromised by working as both a SD and a TD I will be sure to have them and the others that have fallen into this trap contact you directly. PM me your phone number so I can relay it to these people and orgs I know so you can take the "OWNER/HANDLER" word for it yourself. While on the surface the impression of "nothing is wrong with it" is evident here in an owner trainer capacity. The truth behind this is a lot deeper than what is on the surface in this forum.


----------



## SFGSSD

Lauri & The Gang said:


> I found this video on the Canine Companions for Independence website. To me it shows that a Service Dog can be handled by other people, play with other dogs and do things OTHER than just service work all the time:
> 
> Hearing Dogs - Canine Companions for Independence
> 
> Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the video.


What you see in the video is irrelevant, CCI does not allow there Service Dogs to function as anything but a Service Dog for the disabled handler. Give them a call and tell them you want one of their dogs as a Service Dog and then have the dog registered and function as a visiting therapy dog as well and see what they tell you.:laugh:


----------



## SFGSSD

Blanketback said:


> I was always under the impression that a working dog should be ignored - the majority of service dogs I've seen have been guide dogs. When I've admired service dogs, talking to their owners, I've been told not to interact with their dogs. I did meet a service dog in a restaurant this summer, and the owner was encouraging people to pet the dog. In all my years, that was the only one I've ever seen who was allowed to interact with strangers.
> 
> My previous GSD was a Therapy Dog, and he was a much-loved pet. I enjoyed sharing him with others - but I'll be honest, if I actually relied on him to provide me with a 'service' (as it fits under the definition of service dog) I wouldn't be so generous. I would worry that he might somehow be corrupted and be incapable of performing his duties 100%. Not only that, I wouldn't want him gallivanting around town without me.
> 
> If I was in the position to visit with my dog, then I'd worry that I was asking too much of him. Visiting is tiring and a job in itself, with the visits being timed at 45 min. for the dog's sake.


 :thumbup: That is a responsible thought process. Sorry missed your post earlier… well said


----------



## msvette2u

> My previous GSD was a Therapy Dog, and he was a much-loved pet. I enjoyed sharing him with others - but I'll be honest, if I actually relied on him to provide me with a 'service' (as it fits under the definition of service dog) I wouldn't be so generous. I would worry that he might somehow be corrupted and be incapable of performing his duties 100%. Not only that, I wouldn't want him gallivanting around town without me.


This is how I feel as well. We do "therapy" with some of our own dogs when I visit my grandparents in the nursing home they are in; I can't imagine taking a piece of equipment like a SD and trying to do the same with one. Totally opposing "jobs", if you will.


----------



## SFGSSD

msvette2u said:


> This is how I feel as well. We do "therapy" with some of our own dogs when I visit my grandparents in the nursing home they are in; I can't imagine taking a piece of equipment like a SD and trying to do the same with one. Totally opposing "jobs", if you will.


That is correct and puts the dog in direct conflict as well. I do not know if the training terminology I am using is completely understood by everyone but I will give the Professional working dog trainers point of view on this: 
My late father trained MWD, MP-K9, SchH titled multiple dogs while was a master teaching helper/agitator and lecturer SV Germany Late 40’s and again in the early 70’s, Trained multiple Police patrol and narcotics detection dogs Maryland State Police. Trained multiple personal protection dogs and dogs to assist PWD. He had 40+ years of training working dogs and teaching trainers and handlers for real life situations before he passed away in 1997. 
(From his notes please do not reproduce)
“Working dogs that are put in direct conflict of their main role as a working dog is at serious risk for training backslides as associative behaviors related to the conflict will present itself. The working dog in conflict will test its limits and boundaries in spite of how well the initial conditioning was. On the contrary to normal logic in this instance the better the training and conditioning is for the main role of the working dog the more stress is created in relation to the conflict in the dogs mind. This has proven to translate to a greater initial test on the limits and boundaries from the dog.”(c)CSGM Francis X McCormack CDT LOM BS VCOG RET
While I do not expect everyone to understand this, I would hope that you can understand that this is coming from a man that had trained working dogs all his life to levels of competency that still baffles even me today.


----------



## SFGSSD

ILGHAUS said:


> Though it is an older study and report some may find it interesting to read:
> 
> Service and Therapy Work: Can One Dog Do Both? By Debi Davis, Originally
> published in Alert, National Service Dog Center®
> Newsletter Vol. 10, No. 1 1999. Edited for the web and updates.


ILGHAUS, I have read the report. The claims are biased and not clearly supported by anyone specific that is a professional trainer org that produces Service Dogs. They are owner trainers... fair? 
Any good professional working dog trainer will read the claims and shake there head as the conflict in the dog is not even recognized by their own statements and brushed off by saying "the dog can handle it."  
As I said before. don't just take my word for it or Camspacks word for it, call a major Service Dog organization, ask them why it is not acceptable to practice the dual role. Delta (Pet Partners) is a politically motivated machine. What is the one thing a politician does best? You guessed it… they LIE.


----------



## Whiteshepherds

Does this happen a lot? (using SD for Therapy work also) 

I can't picture a leader dog leaving it's handler for any reason so if anyone knows, what jobs are these SD's doing where their handlers only need them part time? (hope that made sense)


----------



## ILGHAUS

Whiteshepherds said:


> Does this happen a lot? (using SD for Therapy work also)
> 
> I can't picture a leader dog leaving it's handler for any reason so if anyone knows, what jobs are these SD's doing where their handlers only need them part time? (hope that made sense)


Where are you seeing anyone saying that a guide dog is leaving their handler? Therapy Dogs stay right with their handlers - they are not seperated.

Some activities of Therapy Dogs and their handlers:
Give demos to children in a classroom on how to act around a strange dog
Listen to children with speach/learning/reading difficulties read a book "to the dog".
Stop off in hospital rooms to say hello and chat with a patient.

If I use a Service Dog for mobility work such as help me stand from a chair or lean against if I start to loose my balance why would it be so wrong for me to sit in a chair next to someone in a nursing home and let them lay their hand on my dog's head and tell me a story about when they had a dog? Do you honestly think that such a visit for a short time would ruin a dog for his main purpose? 

Service Dogs are allowed to interact with friends and family of a PWD. The thing is the handler chooses when and where. The handler doesn't want someone interacting with the dog at times when the dog is needed to work for the handler. They share downtime together much like a pet dog and owner.

Just because someone has a disability doesn't mean they don't have interests and hobbies like non-disabled people.

If a dog can not (is not able to) respond to the needs of the handler while they are sitting quietly talking to someone or while listening to a child read a book then how is this dog going to be able respond to the handler while the dog is asleep or in a different room? 

Guide Dog handlers don't keep their dogs in harness 24/7. Most don't even use their GD in their own homes the majority of the time they are there. Service Dogs are allowed to run around their yard, chase balls, go swimming, and act like any other well-taken care of dog from time to time. Doctors need down time, airplane pilots need down time, so do teachers etc. etc. just as Police K9s have time to chill out as do military dogs. So if a PWD wants to do agility, or obedience, or visit someone in a nursing home or hospital why would that not be allowed?


----------



## Whiteshepherds

ILGHAUS said:


> Do you honestly think that such a visit for a short time would ruin a dog for his main purpose?


I don't know that much about it, that's why I asked the questions. You did a nice of explaining it, thanks.


----------



## ILGHAUS

SFGSSD said:


> ILGHAUS, I have read the report. The claims are biased and not clearly supported by anyone specific that is a professional trainer org that produces Service Dogs. They are owner trainers... fair?
> Any good professional working dog trainer will read the claims and shake there head as the conflict in the dog is not even recognized by their own statements and brushed off by saying "the dog can handle it."
> As I said before. don't just take my word for it or Camspacks word for it, call a major Service Dog organization, ask them why it is not acceptable to practice the dual role. Delta (Pet Partners) is a politically motivated machine. What is the one thing a politician does best? You guessed it… they LIE.


Besides a dozen registered team handlers "Several top behaviorists and trainers working in the service dog field also provided their views " ? 
Quote:
"To find answers to these questions, _Alert _interviewed 12 teams currently doing both service and therapy work. All of these handler-dog teams have completed Delta Society's Pet Partners® curriculum and evaluation. Several top behaviorists and trainers working in the service dog field also provided their views about the relationship of the dogs' roles to their performance expectations."


*Debi Davis* -- Author and Dog Trainer. Debi and her dog Peek carried the Olympic Torch (I believe in 2002) and Peek was also the 1999 National Service Dog of the Year.

*Carol King* -- Author, Dog Trainer, and Court Approved Consultant. She held a major role with IAADP and also well known for promoting the acceptance of SDs for PTSD work. She is a published author, worked with the Dept. of Justice, The Dept. of Homeland Security, and others on the needs of the disabiled during disasters. She gave imput on the NRP and NIMS which is the backbone of all emergency services in the U.S. 

*Mike Lingenfelter* -- some interesting info I just found about his Service Dog 
" He was named 1999 Service Dog of the Year by Delta Society, elected to the Texas Veterinary Medical Foundation Animal Hall of Fame, and chosen as Humanitarian of the Year by the National Sertoma Club of Dallas (the first nonhuman recipient in history). The Angel by My Side is the true story of Dakota and Mike's special bond."
http://www.hayhouse.com/authorbio.php?id=160

And on the same dog spoken of in this report ...
"Dakota interacts with children without being cued, and he does seem to know that these children require special attention. He enjoys this time to play and relax with them, but always remains attentive to me as well."


----------



## ILGHAUS

SFGSSD said:


> ILGHAUS, ... As I said before. don't just take my word for it or Camspacks word for it, call a major Service Dog organization, ask them why it is not acceptable to practice the dual role. Delta (Pet Partners) is a politically motivated machine. What is the one thing a politician does best? You guessed it… they LIE.


So by this line of thought you are also stating that Therapy Dogs Inc. and Love on a Leash are also politically motivated? How about Therapy Dogs Internation until their very recent change? 

I have to look back but I believe not only did TDI allow SDs to be tested as TDs but it wasn't too long ago that one of their TDs of the year was also a SD. Earlier you used the President of TDI as an example of someone against testing SDs but her change in policy was not really that long ago after years of accepting this. 

I was not going to get back into this round and round debate, but when my previous post was brought up again I did want to come back and respond so that no one thought I was ignoring this.


----------



## SFGSSD

ILGHAUS said:


> Just because someone has a disability doesn't mean they don't have interests and hobbies like non-disabled people.


I agree 100% and I agree that they can and should participate in any activity that allows the dog to focus on the handler alone and their job as a Service Dog and does not put the function of their Service Dog or there safety at risk in relation to the Service Dog.
What you may view as harmless, there is something that is called "Degradation in training". There is also something that is called "direct conflict" in the training or conditioning of a working dog that I do not think you fully understand.
When a Service Dog is trained and leaves the facility the Org expects a bit of "Degradation in training" as the handler is not as precise as the professional trainer and the handler more than likely is unable to identify warning signs of training degradation till it is very apparent that the dog does not function the way it used to. Checkups on the Team are very important for the Orgs to make sure that not only the dog is functioning within limits but also the handler is functioning within limits to maintain performance. 
When you say there is nothing wrong with putting a dog in direct conflict that will more than likely create associative behaviors that will CAUSE accelerated degradation in the Service Dog training never mind the added stress put on the dog... As a professional I have a hard time agreeing with that thought process. The icing on the cake is the associative behaviors will put Service Dog teams directly at risk of their safety when the Service Dog is in public and is expected to perform. 
I can say with 99% certainty that if those 12 teams were tested for performance in a Service Dog capacity while in public by a Professional, they all would fail. Not only would they fail, the associative behaviors the dog picked up on and the trainer will point out... the handler would make 101 excuses for. 
You asked WHY only just recently TDI no longer allows the dual role. The answer is simple. Ursula was honestly not aware that it was actually a DUAL role till recently. When that came to the surface she put a stop to it.


----------



## Xeph

I find your argument to be incredibly weak, Terry.

A dog can experience degradation simply by living with anybody other than the handler. I have a house full of dogs, a husband, friends. My friends pet my dog when he is out of harness at home. He sits on the couch with them and rests his head in their laps. He'll play ball with them, he'll take cookies from them, he'll respond to obedience commands from them.

Doesn't happen when he's suited up and out in public.

I still do not see the difference between my dog being loved on by my friends when he is not in harness and somebody in a hospital patting him on the head when he is not in harness.


----------



## SFGSSD

ILGHAUS said:


> "Dakota interacts with children without being cued, and he does seem to know that these children require special attention. He enjoys this time to play and relax with them, but always remains attentive to me as well."


I rest my case.


----------



## martemchik

I think all of this depends on what the dog is used for and how knowledgeable the handler is.

So from a professional service dog organization point of view...they are providing dogs to people that might not be super dog savvy. They're giving dogs to people that possibly have never trained a dog, have never taken care of a dog, and don't really understand a lot of the signals a dog might be giving off. They might not be able to see the "degradation in training" because they don't expect the same high level 100% of the time. It makes sense...some of those people begin to see their dogs as pets and if the dog doesn't listen the first time, or gets distracted but then 10 seconds later does what its asked to do, they won't care. I do this all the time with my dog (not SD)...in training or at a trial I expect 100% obedience, but at home if he doesn't sit within 2 seconds of me saying it, I'm not really going to punish him/correct him.

Now for the handler trained SD...those handlers are probably way more knowledgeable than most people when it comes to dogs and dog training. They have raised their dog, trained their dog, and due to that have a much better understanding of what their dog is capable of without increasing it's "stress" levels.

So if you as an organization want to ban all of your handlers from using their dogs as TDs, its your prerogative and I can see your reasons for it, but to make it a law or a nationwide rule...I don't think its necessary. When it comes to the dogs YOU train, it really is your responsibility to keep them working at a high level, but when it comes to the dogs other people train personally...its kind of up to them what level of service/obedience they expect.

As to TDi and all those other organizations...they can not register SDs all they want. All the handler has to do is say their dog isn't an SD and their dog is registered. Not like there are any SD registries that the TDi references. Also...the majority of the places I've done "therapy work" at, don't even require a registration of any sort. They take our group's/handler's word for the fact that their dog is safe for this type of work (our group wouldn't allow them to go if we didn't think they were).


----------



## SFGSSD

martemchik said:


> So from a professional service dog organization point of view...they are providing dogs to people that might not be super dog savvy. They're giving dogs to people that possibly have never trained a dog, have never taken care of a dog, and don't really understand a lot of the signals a dog might be giving off. They might not be able to see the "degradation in training" because they don't expect the same high level 100% of the time. It makes sense...some of those people begin to see their dogs as pets and if the dog doesn't listen the first time, or gets distracted but then 10 seconds later does what its asked to do, they won't care.
> You are right on the money with that statement. I and a lot of other professionals in this field DO CARE when it comes to the performance of a Service Dog. When a question was asked "Whats wrong with a SD also functioning as a visiting TD?" and ILGHAUS said "Nothing" I am sure you can understand why I and others viewed that as a false or misleading statement.
> Now for the handler trained SD...those handlers are probably way more knowledgeable than most people when it comes to dogs and dog training. They have raised their dog, trained their dog, and due to that have a much better understanding of what their dog is capable of without increasing it's "stress" levels.
> That part is not true. I am willing to bet that about 70% of the owner trainers became owner trainers out of desperation to get a service dog because of the supply and demand for them. Most NEVER have trained a dog before in their life. They go on owner trainer websites, get good professional help, read books or websites that seem to know what they are talking about and get a lot of bad training advice.
> So if you as an organization want to ban all of your handlers from using their dogs as TDs, its your prerogative and I can see your reasons for it, but to make it a law or a nationwide rule...I don't think its necessary. When it comes to the dogs YOU train, it really is your responsibility to keep them working at a high level, but when it comes to the dogs other people train personally...its kind of up to them what level of service/obedience they expect.
> Fair enough, however I take this field VERY seriously and if I see bad advice given in general in respect to Service Dog training, I feel morally obligated to disclose the whole truth even if a high profile SD website says otherwise. As a PET if the dog does not comply it is usually not a big deal. But when a SD does not comply it can be life or death and that is not something to mess with using a PET mentality.
> As to TDi and all those other organizations...they can not register SDs all they want.


 Yes it IS there right and prerogative to choose just like your group leader has that right as well. To start a class action law suit attempting to FORCE a professional organization like TDI to do what TDI knows is wrong and dangerous is contributing to the ignorance of the marginally experienced SD owner trainer. While giving the general public that is attempting to train a SD a false sense of security that NOTHIG AT ALL is wrong with them doing this. But again as the disclaimer says on that website, they are not responsible. So the choice is yours. You can take good professional advice or the advice from someone that has no regard for anyone but herself. If she did have regard for disabled people with service dogs, she would not mislead an inexperienced trainer to do something that could cost them their lives.


----------



## JakodaCD OA

Originally Posted by *ILGHAUS*  
_"Dakota interacts with children without being cued, and he does seem to know that these children require special attention. He enjoys this time to play and relax with them, _

_but always remains attentive to me as well _
_*^^I think you forgot this line^^ when you decided to 'rest your case'*_


_



[ You can take good professional advice or the advice from someone that has no regard for anyone but herself. If she did have regard for disabled people with service dogs, she would not mislead an inexperienced trainer to do something that could cost them their lives. 

Click to expand...

__I'm not really sure who your referring to in the above "her". because this thread is rather confusing to me since I am not "up" on TD/SD .but I would ask, how do 'we' know 'who' the professional is? _

_Is it you? _

_You are entitled to your opinion and we get it, I just get the feeling from your posts that you think your way is the right/only way which to me, is very closed minded. _


----------



## Mrs.K

msvette2u said:


> We had a situation here when I did animal control in which a woman claimed her pit bull (banned at that time from this town) was a therapy dog - for herself (she had mental illness).
> 
> The attorney for the city informed us she could choose any breed for her therapy dog, and this dog was not exempt (by virtue of being a "therapy dog") from the pit bull ban. She had to move the dog out of town, and/or move herself.
> 
> By the definitions above, what she was saying isn't even legally legitimate, right? You can have a therapy dog that sees other people and comforts them, but not one for yourself, to make yourself feel better?
> 
> The reason I ask this is many folks I've come across will tell me "this is my therapy dog, I feel better when I pet it" or some such, and use that as justification to bring their dogs in stores, on airplanes, basically, any place dogs are normally not allowed.
> 
> The same with apartments, many people will try to claim their dog gives them therapy and therefore, even if dogs are banned at said apartment, they believe they can get a doctor's note to keep the dog?


The problem with the term Therapy Dog is that it is confusing to many people. They don't even know what a Therapy Dog is and describe an "Emotional Support Dog" thinking the right term is "Therapy Dog". How are people supposed to know if even the Attorneys can't get it right?


----------



## Mrs.K

Xeph said:


> I find your argument to be incredibly weak, Terry.
> 
> A dog can experience degradation simply by living with anybody other than the handler. I have a house full of dogs, a husband, friends. My friends pet my dog when he is out of harness at home. He sits on the couch with them and rests his head in their laps. He'll play ball with them, he'll take cookies from them, he'll respond to obedience commands from them.
> 
> Doesn't happen when he's suited up and out in public.
> 
> I still do not see the difference between my dog being loved on by my friends when he is not in harness and somebody in a hospital patting him on the head when he is not in harness.


There is a difference. When I took Indra, to accompany my friend, who has a Therapy Dog, on post to visit the Soldiers she was seriously exhausted after just two hours, of visiting different people. She was done for the rest of the day. That was the first time she was doing it and since then she was built up on the time. 

When I had friends over, and they interact with her, it is a completely different subject. First off, the dog is in his own environment, his home and can remove himself from the situation. 
If you are out to visit places, the dog cannot remove himself. It is people he's never seen and a strange environment. 

I noticed the same at demonstrations, when we moved from school class to school class. While she was displaying work as a search dog, the kids also wanted to pet her. She was undergoing petting from over hundred kids, that day. 

You need an absolute stable and rock solid dog for that. It is a stressful situation that is emotionally and physically straining the dog and I wouldn't want a Service Dog, to have that kind of a job on top of that. 

KISS - Keep it stupid simple!


----------



## JakodaCD OA

I'm not getting this, so your saying Indra isn't a rock solid dog because she can't handle the stress? 

Isn't that what our German Shepherds are supposed to be? Able to handle stress like that? 

I guess I'll never get it, these dogs are supposed to be versatile, they are trained (and some inherently) to know the difference from one thing and another..I go into the obedience ring, my dog knows we're there for obedience, we go into the agility ring, they know we're doing something different. 

Now I agree all gsd's are not cut out for multiple things, but they are supposed to be versatile if they weren't, why use them for service dogs, seeing eye dogs, TD's, etc.


----------



## Blanketback

I had my puppy involved in some fundraising events for our TD group not long ago. The shifts were 2 hours each. Even the veteran TDs were showing signs that they'd had enough by then. My puppy was very eager for the first hour, slowed down after that, and by the end he was practically sleeping, lol. It isn't a matter of versatility or solid nerves. It's tiring work - it isn't the same as running a course - it's mentally exhausting. Just like when people advise to tire out their puppies with mental stimulation, and not rely on physical exercise exclusively. 

I think some of the disagreement with the having a SD work as a TD comes down to what the service actually is that the dog's providing. So far in this thread it seems that the dogs in question are mobility dogs, and that the handlers themselves don't have extremely serious disabilities themselves. I'm sorry if I'm assuming something, please forgive me if I am, but I don't want to be so bold as to ask you very intrusive questions. I have seen mobility dogs in action, working with handlers that have very crippling diseases and rely on the dog (harness) to keep them upright at all times. These people don't (from my experiences) want their dogs interacting with others.


----------



## martemchik

SFGSSD said:


> That part is not true. I am willing to bet that about 70% of the owner trainers became owner trainers out of desperation to get a service dog because of the supply and demand for them. Most NEVER have trained a dog before in their life. They go on owner trainer websites, get good professional help, read books or websites that seem to know what they are talking about and get a lot of bad training advice.


Yeah...but they at least trained said dog. So they have at least some experience training a dog and raising one. They can get some idea of what that dog is capable of (might be exaggerated but they still have some idea). They might not have had the experience to compare what their dog does to a truly fantastic dog but they do have some understanding.

The scary thing is that like you said most people are training ify dogs and don't really get what they need to do. What I don't like is "service dog" and "therapy dog" getting thrown around like they make the dog some sort of special being. Just looking through our forum in the last few days, we had a "lost service dog," that dog was like 7 months old and RAN AWAY. 1) How is a dog that is 7 months old a service dog? 2) What is a service dog doing getting distracted and running away?

Then there was a "lost therapy dog" news article which made it seem like because the dog was a TD it was more special than a regular pet. IMO a TD is nothing more than a regular pet, a little more obedience, a solid enough temperament, but in grand scheme of things...nothing that special. BTW...anyone that freaks out at that statement, my dog has done therapy work and so I'm basing my opinion off of that.

It's like people use those terms so loosely now in order to make their dog seem more important than a regular pet. For those of us that work with dogs, and understand these terms, we read things like that and go...what? seriously? Like come on...an SD shouldn't even think about leaving its owner's side for a squirrel chase, much less do it!


----------



## Mrs.K

JakodaCD OA said:


> I'm not getting this, so your saying Indra isn't a rock solid dog because she can't handle the stress?
> 
> Isn't that what our German Shepherds are supposed to be? Able to handle stress like that?
> 
> I guess I'll never get it, these dogs are supposed to be versatile, they are trained (and some inherently) to know the difference from one thing and another..I go into the obedience ring, my dog knows we're there for obedience, we go into the agility ring, they know we're doing something different.
> 
> Now I agree all gsd's are not cut out for multiple things, but they are supposed to be versatile if they weren't, why use them for service dogs, seeing eye dogs, TD's, etc.


No, she IS a rock solid dog and a lot of dogs I have met could have never went through that kind of demonstrations she went through. She handled the stress very well. However, you have to give them a break. She was just a year old when she went on post for the first time, however, she's been in crowds of thousands of people back in Watertown when she was a pup, but walking through a crowd and being crowded by kids and touched and petted, pinched etc. is different. It is also something that should be build up and you don't just toss a dog into a situation where he's been crowded by a class of screaming kids, no matter how stable a dog is. She was specifically trained for these situations, because it was part of our job to do these demonstrations. 

I wouldn't want a Service Dog to be a Therapy Dog. But I wouldn't want a Service Dog to be a Schutzhund Dog either. However, what people do with their dogs, is their own decision.


----------



## SFGSSD

martemchik said:


> It's like people use those terms so loosely now in order to make their dog seem more important than a regular pet. For those of us that work with dogs, and understand these terms, we read things like that and go...what? seriously? Like come on...an SD shouldn't even think about leaving its owner's side for a squirrel chase, much less do it!


You got that right! I will respond to another post as well on this.



JakodaCD OA said:


> Originally Posted by ILGHAUS





JakodaCD OA said:


> "Dakota interacts with children without being cued, and he does seem to know that these children require special attention. He enjoys this time to play and relax with them,
> but always remains attentive to me as well
> ^^I think you forgot this line^^ when you decided to 'rest your case'



NO did not forget as I DID post the whole thing that was the most amusing part of the statement. But as you are "confused" I will spell it out.
1. "Dakota interacts with children without being cued" 
This shows that the dog this shows that when the dog sees children he will just interact with them.
2."and he does seem to know that these children require special attention"
So he is even more attentive to "these children" then maybe an average Therapy Dog?
So if that is the case when the dog is visiting or sees "Special Children" the dog goes to these children "without being cued" btw, and gives them "Special Attention"
3." but always remains attentive to me as well" this makes no common sense never mind sence from a training perspective.:laugh: If you add 1 + 2 in this instance the answer of 3 is hysterical :laugh:Thats like a kid saying "I go outside for resess even if I do not have permission and I play real hard with the kids outside but am attetive to my schoolwork at the same time I am playing:laugh: Yeah no associative behaviors will develop there:laugh:


JakodaCD OA said:


> I'm not really sure who your referring to in the above "her". because this thread is rather confusing to me since I am not "up" on TD/SD .but I would ask, how do 'we' know 'who' the professional is?
> Is it you?


 
It is someone that is giving dangerous and bad SD training advice to people that does not know better. Some of the statements made are very misleading and dangerous if taken seriously in a SD training capacity. This (SHE (I am a HE BTW)) as I will not name directly right now, IS NOT a professional working dog trainer (SD or otherwise). Therefore has no business to give advice in that capacity. Especially if there is risk that an inexperienced disabled owner trainer takes that advice thinking it is coming from a professional SD trainer and gets hurt. But again like HER (NOT me or my) website says "I am not responsible". Yeah… no accountability makes it right To cry discrimination on a personal vendetta (and she has a few "Personal" vendettas) is unprofessional. This is why she lost the respect of A LOT of professionals in the field. 


JakodaCD OA said:


> You are entitled to your opinion and we get it, I just get the feeling from your posts that you think your way is the right/only way which to me, is very closed minded.


 When it comes to Service Dogs (excuse me if I get irritated) I take the SAFETY and RELIABILTY of a Service Dog for disabled people VERY seriously. If I see a potential danger that is not JUST MY opinion but by OTHER professionals in the field as well, I will point it out. Unlike others, I could not sleep well at night knowing I directly contributed to the degradation in training of a Service Dog and put lord knows how many people at risk to be harmed by the advice I give. 
So in closing, these dogs ARE NOT PETS they are working dogs. Attempting to inject a PET mentality in the working dog field is just asking for trouble. If you do not understand fully, might I suggest you shadow a working dog TRAINER and ask questions and see things first hand if you have a real interest in this field.
I hope that clears things up for you


----------



## SFGSSD

Sorry, this line got the beginning of an alternate sentence it should read:


1. "Dakota interacts with children without being cued" 
This shows that if the dog just sees children he will just interact with them. No cue needed.

missed the editing time to fix it on the post.


----------



## ladylaw203

I have been training,handling, certifying yadda yadda police service dogs for 25 yrs. I don't see what is being discussed as being particularly dangerous depending. Folks have a right to their opinions. Some folks claim one breed is better for this or that for example. Opinions. Theresa has been helping in the service dog industry for a long time. I have placed dogs as service animals and she has advised me with regulations etc to help them. How's about duscussing in a professional manner


----------



## SFGSSD

ladylaw203 said:


> I have been training,handling, certifying yadda yadda police service dogs for 25 yrs. I don't see what is being discussed as being particularly dangerous depending. Folks have a right to their opinions. Some folks claim one breed is better for this or that for example. Opinions. Theresa has been helping in the service dog industry for a long time. I have placed dogs as service animals and she has advised me with regulations etc to help them. How's about duscussing in a professional manner


Could you please clarify what you mean by that statement?

As one canine professional to another I am sure you understand the impact of putting a working dog in direct conflict, and the associative behaviors that result from said conflict.

I applaud Theresa for her efforts in advocating and providing legal terminology and explanations of said terminology and law to people with disabilities. I also applaud her for posting and providing legal regulations as well as explanations of these regulations to the general public and people that have an interest in Service Dogs for themselves or in general. I also applaud her for supporting Service Dog efforts for disabled people in general.

As a professional in this field, I feel it is important to stand up for what is right in this field from the prospective of area of expertise. In this case for me it would be the training, conditioning and performance maintenance of a Working Service Dog for people with disabilities and working dogs in general. I am not a Lawyer or an expert on Law and admit I have been guilty of misinterpreting it (what the law says and means) a few times in my life. Part of being a good professional is not only standing up for what is right but also admitting error and correcting said error no matter who you are friends with, or what your political motives may be, it does not change right from wrong from a professional standpoint. 
Also, from one professional to another in the training aspect of a working dog, I am sure you a well aware that mixing a pet mentality with a working dog can seriously compromise the dog.


----------



## ladylaw203

I am a firm believer in a single discipline for a dog. However, with regard to the danger aspect,I think it depends on what the service dog's function is. A DAD, dog for the blind etc, does not need to be distracted at all from what his function is for the handler. my friends with dogs for PTSD can use all the interaction with people that they can get. It helps them heal. goes with the agoraphobic handlers as well. their problems stem from fear of a public venue. if this makes sense


----------



## SFGSSD

ladylaw203 said:


> I am a firm believer in a single discipline for a dog. However, with regard to the danger aspect,I think it depends on what the service dog's function is. A DAD, dog for the blind etc, does not need to be distracted at all from what his function is for the handler. my friends with dogs for PTSD can use all the interaction with people that they can get. It helps them heal. goes with the agoraphobic handlers as well. their problems stem from fear of a public venue. if this makes sense


 Thank you for clarifying. In your response it seems that you concur that it is in fact dangerous (I firmly believe it can be deadly in some cases) if a dual role is practiced with a working Service Dog for disabled people with specific types of disabilities. Is that correct? It also appears that you also concur that single discipline for a working dog is vital to the performance of a working dog (General working dog principles) is that correct?

While I agree that not all types of Service Dogs for PWD that are distracted on the job pose a "life threatening" associative behavior picked up from the dual role of a SD/TD, it is conflicting to the dog none the less, It has been proven and shown that this practice (not sticking to a single discipline) at the very least a cause of degradation in performance of a working dog. The associative behaviors that are created from said dual role can also translate to the Service Dog behaving inappropriately in public as they will eventually try to go to someone (person or child) on their own, or cued by someone other than the handler. Pending on the severity of the associative behavior resulting from conflict, it can cause a mobility dog to go to anyone unexpectedly in public. This sudden associative reaction can cause the handler to fall and break a hip for instance. Or the dog can be viewed as disruptive and “not under control at all times” (This legally gives any business owner, store manager etc.. the legal right to deny access and the handler must remove the dog from the premises... but may return without the dog to complete their business in said public place.) Putting a PWD with a SD in a position that legally could separate them from the dog in order to complete their business in public is also very dangerous for many types of disabilities. The General statement of "It is dangerous" covers this and many other “for instances” of what can happen if associative behaviors present itself while the dog is functioning as a Service Dog in public.
In your own words as a Professional Working Dog Trainer and Evaluator, would you mind explaining why you are a “firm believer in a single discipline for a dog.”? While I tried to explain this myself, earlier in this thread, I admit and thank the lord that I am a dog trainer and not a writer, because I definitely would not make it in that profession.
Posted by ladylaw in red below:
" my friends with dogs for PTSD can use all the interaction with people that they can get. It helps them heal. goes with the agoraphobic handlers as well. their problems stem from fear of a public venue. if this makes sense." In response to this, we can get more indepth in another thread as this is to much to cover right now.


----------



## ladylaw203

SFGSSD said:


> Thank you for clarifying. In your response it seems that you concur that it is in fact dangerous (I firmly believe it can be deadly in some cases) if a dual role is practiced with a working Service Dog for disabled people with specific types of disabilities. Is that correct? It also appears that you also concur that single discipline for a working dog is vital to the performance of a working dog (General working dog principles) is that correct?
> .


I have always preferred a single discipline. Most departments have dual purpose patrol/narc or patrol/EDD I still prefer a single discipline which is why I do not advocate Live find/HRD dogs. for various reasons,some legal. I actually do put a command on my dogs so they know they are free to take a break,sniff, run around whatever. A release command if you will. My circumstances are a lot different than a SD handler however, and if they are in public , the dog's focus should be on his job. Period if the dog's function is to provide a vital service to the individual. Just me.


----------



## SFGSSD

ladylaw203 said:


> I have always preferred a single discipline. Most departments have dual purpose patrol/narc or patrol/EDD I still prefer a single discipline which is why I do not advocate Live find/HRD dogs. for various reasons, some legal..


Fair enough.



ladylaw203 said:


> My circumstances are a lot different than a SD handler however, and if they are in public , the dog's focus should be on his job. Period if the dog's function is to provide a vital service to the individual. Just me.


 Agreed.
TO ALL:
The policy change by TDI stops ALL service dog handlers from registering their service dog as a visiting therapy dog for a dual role. This is about the DOG and it has nothing to do with discriminating against anyone. If TDI said: (for instance) Nobody that has a DAD or a Seeing eye dog but a PTSD dog is ok, they then would CLEARLY be discriminating as it is no longer about the dog it is about the specific disability.
As it sits now, IT IS NOT discrimination as the policy is all about the dog NOT the disabled handler or the disability. PET Partners will register a Service Dog as a visiting therapy dog to function in a duel role if you choose. As a word of caution: If you want to go down that road with PET Partners, do so at your own risk! If you wind up experiencing degradation in training or associative behaviors that causes you to be injured they (Pet Paertners) will not take responsibility for allowing you to do this. You legally have a right to do this dual role at this time, just as TDI has a legal right to look out for the best interest of the dog and its members in relation to their Registered Therapy Dogs.


----------



## Mrs.K

SFGSSD said:


> Fair enough.
> Agreed.
> TO ALL:
> The policy change by TDI stops ALL service dog handlers from registering their service dog as a visiting therapy dog for a dual role. This is about the DOG and it has nothing to do with discriminating against anyone. If TDI said: (for instance) Nobody that has a DAD or a Seeing eye dog but a PTSD dog is ok, they then would CLEARLY be discriminating as it is no longer about the dog it is about the specific disability.
> As it sits now, IT IS NOT discrimination as the policy is all about the dog NOT the disabled handler or the disability. PET Partners will register a Service Dog as a visiting therapy dog to function in a duel role if you choose. As a word of caution: If you want to go down that road with PET Partners, do so at your own risk! If you wind up experiencing degradation in training or associative behaviors that causes you to be injured they (Pet Paertners) will not take responsibility for allowing you to do this. You legally have a right to do this dual role at this time, just as TDI has a legal right to look out for the best interest of the dog and its members in relation to their Registered Therapy Dogs.


Whether people like it or not, in my opinion it does makes a lot of sense! :thumbup:


----------

