# Fake Service dogs, ADA, legit working dogs.



## ODINsFREKI

As times change, policy will sometimes need to be modified to prevent loopholes and abuse. The nearest city to me is a very popular tourist town near Glacier National Park. Over the years, you would see a few Canadian tourists with papered dogs that were out of control yet allowed into stores, dining establishments and other areas where regular dogs are not allowed.

It seems that every year, more and more people are getting "papers" for their dogs so they can stay in motels, hotels and other places that do not allow dogs. They are abusing the ADA law that allows disabled people to bring their dogs with them for help. 

A quick search showed me that you can get an emotional support dog certificate for about 40 bucks online. You can even buy vests and other official looking markings for your dog. 

Well, this just isn't right. I understand that there are times that an emotional support dog is beneficial to it's handler. But, this is being abused. 

The laws are not clear on who can get a service dog and where they can go. It is wide open for interp. and that is good for the truly disabled but, a loophole for selfish people who just want to take fido into eat with them and don't want to pay cargo fees for a crated dog. 

The air industry has pretty good regulations on service animals but in the real world, it can be abused with no reprimand.

What can we do to protect the status of working dogs and keep a good relationship with business owners, the public and people with real disabilities and need a working dog?

Is this a problem in your area? Do you see unmarked lap dogs barking in areas where they are not allowed? It directly interferes with working dogs and their mission. 

How can we stop this?


----------



## Cschmidt88

I think a lot of it is undereducated employees as well. For example, even if they can get a certificate online that says "Emotional Support Animal", ESAs do not have public access rights like Service Dogs do.
Please Don't Pet Me

I honestly would have no issue with proof of training from a certified (in general dog training). Some counties you have to provide this in order to register your dog as a SD. I wouldn't mind having to get a license for your SD through county that way.

We can follow the laws, and educate wherever it's welcome. Some may get involved with the government to discuss laws.

And yes, I see a lot of fake SDs.


----------



## Gretchen

I agree, this issue has come up a few times on this website. I wrote something like this too. What go me going was our former breeder who also did dog training, wanted to make our dog a service dog for my adult daughter, she has mild cerebral palsy. He had no qualifications that I knew of, and did not mention specific tasks for the dog. Plus, my daughter being very independent and capable felt insulted that she needed "help". Someone in our training group was able to buy a "service dog in training" vest for her dog that I felt was somewhat aggressive.

My husband's niece got some fake papers saying her Ridgeback mix dog was a service dog so she did not need to quarantine it when traveling back and forth between the USA and Costa Rica - shameful. Fortunately in my immediate area I do not see much abuse of this.

My daughter told me a story about someone in her painting class bringing a small dog in, saying it was her emotional support dog. Normally no dogs are allowed on campus. Being a fun, laid back class, the instructor said it was OK. The dog went up to a student and peed on his leg, how embarrassing! The person with emotional support dog never came back to class after that.


----------



## crackem

how do you stop it? simple, well mannered dogs are allowed in public places, ones that aren't, aren't. Any dog disrupting anything are immediately tossed along with their owners, papers or not. That is the law now and it's probably the only law we need. Then nobody will fake papers because there will be no need. and maybe more people would be a better dog owner like people in other countries because they will be expected to have a well mannered dog when out and about and if not, they get to sit at home.


----------



## Xeph

The easiest way to stop is is TURN FAKERS IN!!! People turn a blind eye. Some have admitted it in threads because "it's not hurting anybody". Really? Then why are people complaining!

TURN IN THE FAKERS!



> I honestly would have no issue with proof of training from a certified (in general dog training)


I do, since many handlers (in the USA) owner train.

I owner train.


----------



## marbury

There's no real place to 'turn them in', though. And many disabilities are invisible; I reckon I'd make a butt of myself pretty quick if I tried 'turning in' half the people I thought were abusing the ADA laws.
Now if the animal clearly could not even pass a CGC I will call them on it, and loudly. My first question is usually "what organization trained your service animal?". Since I have experience with the dogs that leave Maxwell for Canine Companions for Independence I feel I have at least _some _idea of what I should be seeing. That's gotten folks to shut up and play nice before.

I was on a flight where a woman attempted to sneak on her yorkie and was caught. I thought the attendant handled it very well; he very politely said that the captain needed to see the note she brought from her psychologist to waive the fees. She bumbled and hemmed and hawed about forgetting it at home. He apologized for the regulations but insisted that she come with him to pay the additional $125 for having a dog in the cabin. She left with minor fuss and came back on red as a beet, having been the cause of our twenty minute flight delay.

The BASIC OBEDIENCE class I was in (and I mean BASIC, like getting your pup to recognize his name and how to sit down on command) had a pit mix dog with a "SERVICE DOG" vest on. I had to face-palm. No 'training' patch or anything.

And if I had a dollar for every 'service dog' that came into the clinic where I work that is fear aggressive, a biter, or so bouncing-off-the-wall-crazy that it's impossible to get anything accomplished I could take a vacation to California. If they were ever legitimately trained their owners made sure that it didn't stick.


----------



## skier16

2 problems

1. enforcement- basically non-existant

2. legality of questioning service dog handler. very few specific things can be asked, anymore your setting yourself up for a lawsuit if the person is legitimate if your an establishment owner.


----------



## Xeph

Turn them into the manager of the place of business is what I meant, Marbury


----------



## marbury

Xeph said:


> Turn them into the manager of the place of business is what I meant, Marbury


Even then... what happens next? When I worked at Starbucks people would try and bring in purse dogs all the time. Other customers would complain, and we would go talk to them. But if they say "it's my service dog" we had no legal ability to force them to produce documents as such, even though we were food service. So yes, it might embarrass them into behaving better, but it could also mean that we just embarrassed or alienated a customer who has a legitimate reason for having a service animal with them at our store. Ouch!

I would be happy if there was less dialogue about such matters at dog parks and such. People talk to each other and laugh about how you can 'get your dog in free' by 'just saying he's your service dog'. It's legitimate advice now. I find that disgusting.


----------



## Xeph

> But if they say "it's my service dog" we had no legal ability to force them to produce documents as such


You can't force them to produce documents, but you may ask what tasks the dog does to mitigate their disability.

Emotional support is not a task. Bye bye.


----------



## marbury

Xeph said:


> Emotional support is not a task. Bye bye.


I personally disagree with that. I have had a designated Emotional Companion Animal, without whom it would have been impossible to navigate through non-functional periods and now be able to live a normal life. I had a note from my psychologist and he had a school ID while I was at college. His pawprint is tattooed on my foot, and he has been instrumental in my ability to relate with other people and understand what it means to be independent from my debilitating anxiety and depression. He was my transitional object from a mental hospital back into society and although he no longer has his old 'job' to do he is still a very important part of my life.
Did he pick up phones when the rang? Absolutely not. Did he help pull me up when I needed to stand? Heck no. He was trained and able to turn me over if I was face-down, but that would never happen in public places. He knew when I was anxious and would sit on my foot to help me cope. He understood when I was uncomfortable and would 'ask' to leave; it gave me an excuse to remove myself from a situation in which I was uncomfortable early on in my recovery. He had a job.

Despite this, did he ever go into non-dog-friendly buildings? No. Come to class? No. Go to restaurants? No. Don't overlook the benefits of an ECA; they can be and are sometimes issued/prescribed and used responsibly. The issue here is people who abuse the privileges liberally handed to them by the ADA. For every responsible, conscious owner there are fifty that manipulate the rules.


----------



## DaniFani

Xeph said:


> You can't force them to produce documents, but you may ask what tasks the dog does to mitigate their disability.
> 
> Emotional support is not a task. Bye bye.


This is true, but I would feel terrible if there was a legitimate reason and I just made a scene. And I agree, in today's litigious society (US), many businesses feel the risks outweigh the benefits when it comes to confronting someone about their animal. It probably doesn't happen often enough that they feel a need to do anything.

I agree, there have been a few times where it was ridiculously obvious. I was in the produce section at a grocery store and someone's pitbull with a "service animal" vest on, was NOT under owner control and was actually sniffing and licking some of the produce, while pulling very tight on the end of it's lead and ignoring the handler. In that case I did say, "uh, your dog is getting saliva on the food." And they quickly left where I was.....But, I'm a patron, not a worker/owner of a facility....If I was I would probably roll my eyes and bite my tongue.


----------



## Xeph

Marbury, you did not teach your dog emotional support. A dog just being around is emotional support. Tasks are TRAINED behaviors

I am not overlooking the benefits of an ESA, but they are not trained to do anything.



> If I was I would probably roll my eyes and bite my tongue.


If people aren't going to stand up and take a chance and turn in people like the one with the produce licking dog....then they shouldn't complain. There are ways to out fakers within the confines of the law. It is up to those that see others abusing the ADA to call them on it.


----------



## DaniFani

Xeph said:


> Marbury, you did not teach your dog emotional support. A dog just being around is emotional support. Tasks are TRAINED behaviors
> 
> I am not overlooking the benefits of an ESA, but they are not trained to do anything.
> 
> 
> *If people aren't going to stand up and take a chance and turn in people like the one with the produce licking dog....then they shouldn't complain*. There are ways to out fakers within the confines of the law. It is up to those that see others abusing the ADA to call them on it.


I'm not complaining, and I did what *I* thought was necessary in that situation. I didn't feel it was worth making a scene over, and I don't see it abused often enough to care about it....now if people were being attacked regularly by pseudo-service dogs, well then I'd be more adamant about reporting people....I just don't think the risks (owner-embarrassment, privacy rights, legal action, etc...) outweigh the benefits (getting someone to leave a restaurant early).....


----------



## marbury

Xeph said:


> Marbury, you did not teach your dog emotional support. A dog just being around is emotional support. Tasks are TRAINED behaviors
> 
> I am not overlooking the benefits of an ESA, but they are not trained to do anything.


Absolutely true. If we're parsing words then I agree with you.

I also agree with DaniFani. There are too many invisible disabilities to go around accusing folks of abusing the ADA laws outright. That can have huge implications; no one should have to 'out' themselves as disabled nor should they be required to tote around a doctors note that may be decades old. My ideal solution would be to create an ACTUAL roster of functional dogs (and their trained functions, or "tasks" as you call them) that can be reported upon. Instead of 35+ bogus registries that will send you a patch and a certificate with no accountability let's advocate for at least a national (if not international) registry that allows for independent advocacy. That way if Fido #ZX332 hikes his leg at a Barnes and Nobel and is reported for this action he can have his registration reviewed and potentially revoked.

There will always be SOMEONE trying to fly under the radar. Until the fundamental laws are changed there is no way to 'properly' deal with someone who may or may not be abusing ADA laws. There are ways you can call people out and ways you can worm out information, but at the end of the day there is nothing we can actually do about those people at this time.


----------



## belladonnalily

I have 2 perspectives on this. 

I work in the corporate office for a property management and development company. We happen to have our office on site of one of our residential properties. I have an apartment on an adjoining property, also owned by the company, where I reside several days a week.

We have breed restrictions. No size restrictions though. You CANNOT have a GSD, Chow, Dobie, Rott or "Pitt" (or any "mix" with the aforementioned breeds. You CAN have a Husky, Akita, Malinios or a 160lb Cane Corso. 

One resident had a GSD mix that was a "service" dog. Dog was viscious and owner was a hopeless drunk. He would have been better suited for a service cat. Dog finally bit another resident and was euthanized. 

Enter my situation. I take my GSD to work and he stays with me at the apartment when I'm there. Company owner is ok with it. My direct supervisor is ok with it. Even the Residential Properties Manager is ok with it. But the PM of the property where our office is has a FIT. She is unlikable to begin with, and is clueless about dogs. She enacted the completely ignorant Breed Restriction rule. She raises such a stink that Rpmgr asks me to keep a low profile with him until they can enact a rule change, in fairness to the residents. 

So what do I do? I get a letter from my doctor and call him a service dog in training. 

Now PM is asking everyone, in spite of legal issues in doing so, WHY I need a service dog. When I finally confronted her (as she never once spoke to me about her concerns), I told her it was for my Anger Management problem and he was there for her benefit. 

And truth be known, having him there has kept me from choking her on more than one occassion...

So, while I see the problem with this, I'm certainly glad for my sake it was this easy. I don't intend on taking my pup in restaurants or other inappropriate places. I have a trainer and am a responsible dog owner. And after seeing aggressive Akitas and labxs allowed on the property with owners that can't handle them, I felt it wasn't the worst thing I could do to have my dog allowed to be with me too.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## gagsd

If people would just familiarize themselves with the law, there would not be these issues to such a great extent. I just posted links on another thread.
ESDs do not have federally protected public access rights.
Service dogs must be providing a service to mitigate a disability, and must be individually trained to perform a task.
Any dog out of control or not house trained can be required to leave .


----------



## marbury

gagsd said:


> Any dog out of control or not house trained can be required to leave .


Technically yes... but try telling that to a hot-blooded person who thinks the law is on their side. Oy, the yelling bouts our poor manager used to have to endure!


----------



## gagsd

Bullies get away with it because we allow them. I "know" of someone faking a SD. If I actually see it myself I will call them out. The more I am around SDs and their owner/handlers the more irritable I get about it.


----------



## volcano

There is no such thing as papers. Nobody is allowed to ask your disability or request papers. Its an honor system. Ive never seen a service dog in my life that I remember, is this an issue?


----------



## belladonnalily

Gagsd, according to Fair Housing laws, you cannot ask for proof of disability or even what it is, or any proof of specialized training. You can have a herd of flying monkeys if your doctor says so.

The only thing that got the ShepX off of our property was that it bit someone. Totally separate issue from Fair Housing laws and breed restrictions. And there is nothing stopping him from getting another restricted breed and calling him a service dog. 

That is the law where I live (Virginia).

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Cschmidt88

Xeph said:


> I do, since many handlers (in the USA) owner train.
> 
> I owner train.


 My dog is owner/handler trained. I contacted a certified trainer and asked him to accompany us on a night out and write a report. I also demonstrated what service behaviors I could. There's ways to do it. I do believe the ADI also offers Public Access Tests for those who haven't trained through them.


----------



## Oisin's Aoire

Personally , I would have no problem with a standardized public service access test. Would not matter if it was owner trainer , trainer trained. Just a simple public access test to show the dog has acceptable manners and no behavior issues. Maybe the test can be waived if you can give proof that the dog has CGC.

I am not a fan of legislating the "you know what" out of things ... but I can tell you the fastest growing group of "fakers" is probably parents with autistic kids. Because I am one . While I am going the right route , I know plenty of my peers in my neck of the woods who are not , who merely buy a vest off the internet for their dog that is "wonderful with their autistic child" .

On one hand I do not like over regulations , especially since enormous cost would come into play ( someone would have to pay for this public access test ) . On the other hand , I have a child in great need , I can't go places without hiring an aid for 18 bucks an hour to help . Why should I pay what will amount to over a thousand training this pup during the next year on the HOPE that he passes and can become an official SDIT , and then pay anther another 5 K for service dog training , when other peope are just slapping a vest on Coco the family lab ? 

Then when enough Cocos poop on the beach or in the park where it says " no dogs allowed" , or bother other patrons at a restaurant with a crotch sniff it will lead to businesses having a case where they are allowed to ask people for papers or a license for their SD.

When you are , or are with , a truly disabled person sometimes doing things normal people do is stressful enough..the added stress/self consciousness from having a store manager being allowed within the law to examine your documentation is something I would like to not see happen..but prediction , if enough people abuse and enough incidents pop up , you will see it. 

I have a Mastiff named Greta that would make a wonderful SD for my son. She already does 90% of what I want our SD to do , and she is impeccably trained . But , she is a bit shy and she drools sometimes and sheds excessively and has super oily skin . I would NEVER subject people in a restaurant to that. I would never stick a vest on her for the sake of our needs. It would save me quite a bit of money and the possible disappointment if Alvin does not cut the mustard ..but I would not do it. I assure you as a parent of an autistic child other parents are hearing you can legally "owner train" and it starting to be abused left right and center.

The only reasonable solution I can think of is a standardized public access test that gives you an official ID card. If parents or disabled people research how to make their dog a SD and see a standardized test it will either make them think twice about faking it , or it will drive them to get the training . The public access test does not have to even bring of the topic of the person's disability ..just that the dog is trained FOR REAL and won't lick the fruit , pee in aisle 6 , or paw other patrons for attention. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Gretchen

Oisin's Aoire said:


> Personally , I would have no problem with a standardized public service access test. Would not matter if it was owner trainer , trainer trained. Just a simple public access test to show the dog has acceptable manners and no behavior issues. Maybe the test can be waived if you can give proof that the dog has CGC.
> 
> I am not a fan of legislating the "you know what" out of things ... but I can tell you the fastest growing group of "fakers" is probably parents with autistic kids. Because I am one . While I am going the right route , I know plenty of my peers in my neck of the woods who are not , who merely buy a vest off the internet for their dog that is "wonderful with their autistic child" .
> 
> On one hand I do not like over regulations , especially since enormous cost would come into play ( someone would have to pay for this public access test ) . On the other hand , I have a child in great need , I can't go places without hiring an aid for 18 bucks an hour to help . Why should I pay what will amount to over a thousand training this pup during the next year on the HOPE that he passes and can become an official SDIT , and then pay anther another 5 K for service dog training , when other peope are just slapping a vest on Coco the family lab ?
> 
> Then when enough Cocos poop on the beach or in the park where it says " no dogs allowed" , or bother other patrons at a restaurant with a crotch sniff it will lead to businesses having a case where they are allowed to ask people for papers or a license for their SD.
> 
> When you are , or are with , a truly disabled person sometimes doing things normal people do is stressful enough..the added stress/self consciousness from having a store manager being allowed within the law to examine your documentation is something I would like to not see happen..but prediction , if enough people abuse and enough incidents pop up , you will see it.
> 
> I have a Mastiff named Greta that would make a wonderful SD for my son. She already does 90% of what I want our SD to do , and she is impeccably trained . But , she is a bit shy and she drools sometimes and sheds excessively and has super oily skin . I would NEVER subject people in a restaurant to that. I would never stick a vest on her for the sake of our needs. It would save me quite a bit of money and the possible disappointment if Alvin does not cut the mustard ..but I would not do it. I assure you as a parent of an autistic child other parents are hearing you can legally "owner train" and it starting to be abused left right and center.
> 
> The only reasonable solution I can think of is a standardized public access test that gives you an official ID card. If parents or disabled people research how to make their dog a SD and see a standardized test it will either make them think twice about faking it , or it will drive them to get the training . The public access test does not have to even bring of the topic of the person's disability ..just that the dog is trained FOR REAL and won't lick the fruit , pee in aisle 6 , or paw other patrons for attention.
> 
> Thoughts?


Thank you for having integrity.

This is very personal and an opinion many do not agree with, but I do not like the trend of parents relying on a dog for children with medical or behavioral needs. From my own experience with my daughter who had seizures, walking and balance issues I can tell you the last thing I needed was a dog, either pet or service dog to take care of.

I really think there should be some sort of test or qualification to have a service dog, a written and performance test like when you get your drivers license.


----------



## ODINsFREKI

skier16 said:


> 2 problems
> 
> 1. enforcement- basically non-existant
> 
> 2. legality of questioning service dog handler. very few specific things can be asked, anymore your setting yourself up for a lawsuit if the person is legitimate if your an establishment owner.



You NAILED it! Lots of sue happy people.


----------



## ODINsFREKI

gagsd said:


> If people would just familiarize themselves with the law, there would not be these issues to such a great extent. I just posted links on another thread.
> ESDs do not have federally protected public access rights.
> Service dogs must be providing a service to mitigate a disability, and must be individually trained to perform a task.
> Any dog out of control or not house trained can be required to leave .


I will look for your link. Can you post links to other threads on this forum? 

Anyway, I have looked into the laws several times and it's very fuzzy with tons of loopholes and enforcement is not there. There is no training for businesses or owners to deal with service dogs. There is no reprimand for jack a##es who abuse this wonderful law that allows truly disabled people to have a working dog to improve their life. 

For example, I had a guy with a big dumb poodle running around my property off the leash. I told him no dogs, private property. He responded it was a service dog. I told him to put identification on the dog and have it on a leash or heeling. He got all huffy and threatened to report me. I had the sheriff deal with it. Waste of tax dollars and the Canadian was removed from the property. Their kid had a disability but the dog was not trained in the very basic commands. 

I can read dogs. A majority of people can not. What does someone do to question the status of the dog? It's not clearly defined. It's an open ended law that is being severely abused. Service dogs are a must and need to be protected. I have seen several benefits to people removed by a small minority of people screwing it up for the rest of the people who lawfully operate. 

I believe that if we don't address this, it will have a negative effect on legitimate service dogs and their owners.


----------



## ODINsFREKI

Oisin's Aoire said:


> Personally , I would have no problem with a standardized public service access test. Would not matter if it was owner trainer , trainer trained. Just a simple public access test to show the dog has acceptable manners and no behavior issues. Maybe the test can be waived if you can give proof that the dog has CGC.
> 
> I am not a fan of legislating the "you know what" out of things ... but I can tell you the fastest growing group of "fakers" is probably parents with autistic kids. Because I am one . While I am going the right route , I know plenty of my peers in my neck of the woods who are not , who merely buy a vest off the internet for their dog that is "wonderful with their autistic child" .
> 
> On one hand I do not like over regulations , especially since enormous cost would come into play ( someone would have to pay for this public access test ) . On the other hand , I have a child in great need , I can't go places without hiring an aid for 18 bucks an hour to help . Why should I pay what will amount to over a thousand training this pup during the next year on the HOPE that he passes and can become an official SDIT , and then pay anther another 5 K for service dog training , when other peope are just slapping a vest on Coco the family lab ?
> 
> Then when enough Cocos poop on the beach or in the park where it says " no dogs allowed" , or bother other patrons at a restaurant with a crotch sniff it will lead to businesses having a case where they are allowed to ask people for papers or a license for their SD.
> 
> When you are , or are with , a truly disabled person sometimes doing things normal people do is stressful enough..the added stress/self consciousness from having a store manager being allowed within the law to examine your documentation is something I would like to not see happen..but prediction , if enough people abuse and enough incidents pop up , you will see it.
> 
> I have a Mastiff named Greta that would make a wonderful SD for my son. She already does 90% of what I want our SD to do , and she is impeccably trained . But , she is a bit shy and she drools sometimes and sheds excessively and has super oily skin . I would NEVER subject people in a restaurant to that. I would never stick a vest on her for the sake of our needs. It would save me quite a bit of money and the possible disappointment if Alvin does not cut the mustard ..but I would not do it. I assure you as a parent of an autistic child other parents are hearing you can legally "owner train" and it starting to be abused left right and center.
> 
> The only reasonable solution I can think of is a standardized public access test that gives you an official ID card. If parents or disabled people research how to make their dog a SD and see a standardized test it will either make them think twice about faking it , or it will drive them to get the training . The public access test does not have to even bring of the topic of the person's disability ..just that the dog is trained FOR REAL and won't lick the fruit , pee in aisle 6 , or paw other patrons for attention.
> 
> Thoughts?


A service dog is a tool. One of the tools I use is a pistol. We have to provide proof of training to the local sheriff to carry the tool concealed. The service dog owners need to provide proof of training to the local sheriff and get a certificate. The certificate is the size of a credit card. The owner needs to have it on the dog or their person. It must be checked and approved at the boarder.

I have to do this for an inanimate object so a living tool/weapon/animal also needs to be properly papered to be in restricted areas. It would make it easy to weed out the people abusing the system. It does not need to state a reason, only that the dog passes a basic test for manners in public. Still, if the dog is out of control, they must be able to be removed without getting sued by the owner who claims their rights were violated.

Too strict and invasive? Welcome to the world of firearms. What do you think?


----------



## Gretchen

ODINsFREKI said:


> A service dog is a tool. One of the tools I use is a pistol. We have to provide proof of training to the local sheriff to carry the tool concealed. The service dog owners need to provide proof of training to the local sheriff and get a certificate. The certificate is the size of a credit card. The owner needs to have it on the dog or their person. It must be checked and approved at the boarder.
> 
> I have to do this for an inanimate object so a living tool/weapon/animal also needs to be properly papered to be in restricted areas. It would make it easy to weed out the people abusing the system. It does not need to state a reason, only that the dog passes a basic test for manners in public. Still, if the dog is out of control, they must be able to be removed without getting sued by the owner who claims their rights were violated.
> 
> Too strict and invasive? Welcome to the world of firearms. What do you think?


Yes, as a stated before a written and skills test, the dog can have it's own ID, like the size of a credit card. Doing this would not be too invasive. Since you brought up firearms, I recently took a beginner hand gun class. The instructor said if I felt like studying, we could take a written test and a hands on safety test to get certified in case we ever wanted to purchase one. Three evening classes out of my life and an afternoon of studying. Not a big deal, well worth the time and effort. I think there would be a level of pride that the handler or trainer has the knowledge and skills to work with a service dog and confidence that the dog will perform the jobs needed.


----------



## gagsd

http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...ogs/313297-two-dog-sightings.html#post3966537


----------



## Suburbandiva

belladonnalily said:


> When I finally confronted her (as she never once spoke to me about her concerns), I told her it was for my Anger Management problem and he was there for her benefit.
> 
> And truth be known, having him there has kept me from choking her on more than one occassion...
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Hee hee. Thanks for the chuckle, belladonnalily! :laugh:


----------



## JustJim

ODINsFREKI said:


> A service dog is a tool. One of the tools I use is a pistol. We have to provide proof of training to the local sheriff to carry the tool concealed. The service dog owners need to provide proof of training to the local sheriff and get a certificate. The certificate is the size of a credit card. The owner needs to have it on the dog or their person. It must be checked and approved at the boarder.
> 
> I have to do this for an inanimate object so a living tool/weapon/animal also needs to be properly papered to be in restricted areas. It would make it easy to weed out the people abusing the system. It does not need to state a reason, only that the dog passes a basic test for manners in public. Still, if the dog is out of control, they must be able to be removed without getting sued by the owner who claims their rights were violated.
> 
> Too strict and invasive? Welcome to the world of firearms. What do you think?


The problem with that analogy is that when someone seeks a permit to carry a concealed weapon, they are seeking _additional_ privileges over members of the general public. 

People with disabilities who use a service dog are seeking _equal _access through the use of service dogs to ameliorate some effects of a disability that would otherwise prevent them from having equal access. Requiring permits etc in order to have equal access is to restrict the rights of those with a disability, relative to members of the general public who do not have a disability. 

If you really think permitting, vesting, etc, is something that should be done, the way to do it is to do it in the same manner as CCW legislation was passed: on a state level, with additional privileges or protections provided in return for _voluntarily_ complying with the law. People who chose not to comply with the law lose nothing.


----------



## DaniFani

JustJim said:


> The problem with that analogy is that when someone seeks a permit to carry a concealed weapon, they are seeking _additional_ privileges over members of the general public.
> 
> *People with disabilities who use a service dog are seeking equal access through the use of service dogs to ameliorate some effects of a disability that would otherwise prevent them from having equal access. Requiring permits etc in order to have equal access is to restrict the rights of those with a disability, relative to members of the general public who do not have a disability.
> *
> If you really think permitting, vesting, etc, is something that should be done, the way to do it is to do it in the same manner as CCW legislation was passed: on a state level, with additional privileges or protections provided in return for _voluntarily_ complying with the law. People who chose not to comply with the law lose nothing.


Well said.


----------



## ODINsFREKI

JustJim said:


> The problem with that analogy is that when someone seeks a permit to carry a concealed weapon, they are seeking _additional_ privileges over members of the general public.
> 
> People with disabilities who use a service dog are seeking _equal _access through the use of service dogs to ameliorate some effects of a disability that would otherwise prevent them from having equal access. Requiring permits etc in order to have equal access is to restrict the rights of those with a disability, relative to members of the general public who do not have a disability.
> 
> If you really think permitting, vesting, etc, is something that should be done, the way to do it is to do it in the same manner as CCW legislation was passed: on a state level, with additional privileges or protections provided in return for _voluntarily_ complying with the law. People who chose not to comply with the law lose nothing.


You can open carry and assert your rights anywhere in the state of Montana. You are correct, it does need to be done on a state level. A CCW is asserting your right, not privilege, to carry concealed in an area where legislation has deemed it unnecessary. It's an inalienable right that needs to be asserted. A man or woman with a disability asserts their rights to equality by having access to tools that help them. Almost identical to people who need protection with firearms. 

It's not wrong to have these dogs properly trained and documented. They are just as dangerous as a car, boat, horse, rifle, etc. If you want them in areas where private and public have outlawed them, you must assert your rights and provide some trust that you know how to use your tools. 

Can you drive with out training? Even bottom feeding lawyers need to carry a bar card to practice their form of law.


----------



## volcano

Yeah I hate when the dogs keep cutting in line as if they didnt see me. Where is the service dog thing a problem, and why are you too wimpy to tell people off if you know theyre abusing it? You actually want to make laws to do what youre scared to speak up about???


----------



## Xeph

> Can you drive with out training?


I dunno. Let's ask the farm boys of Wisconsin and see what answer we get.


----------



## JustJim

ODINsFREKI said:


> You can open carry and assert your rights anywhere in the state of Montana. You are correct, it does need to be done on a state level. A CCW is asserting your right, not privilege, to carry concealed in an area where legislation has deemed it unnecessary. It's an inalienable right that needs to be asserted. A man or woman with a disability asserts their rights to equality by having access to tools that help them. Almost identical to people who need protection with firearms.
> 
> It's not wrong to have these dogs properly trained and documented. They are just as dangerous as a car, boat, horse, rifle, etc. If you want them in areas where private and public have outlawed them, you must assert your rights and provide some trust that you know how to use your tools.
> 
> Can you drive with out training? Even bottom feeding lawyers need to carry a bar card to practice their form of law.


And that's where the analogy breaks down. 

Montana's constitution does *not *recognize a rightto carry a firearm openly or concealed "anywhere in the state of Montana." The state outlaws any carry of firearms in schools, in some places local ordinances ban firearms in public assemblies/publicly owned buildings/parks, and federal law bans firearms in federal buildings. Your CCW permit came with conditions (had to be 18, pass a background check, take classes) and there are even more places you can't carry (buildings owned or leased by federal/state/local government, banks or credit unions, rooms where alcohol is sold under a liquor license). 

_You_ have the right to go to any of those places, but if you _choose_ to carry a firearm, you accept restrictions on where you can go, and in some cases (CCW) have to have explicit permission from the government to do so (a CCW permit). 

Similarly, on the surface, driving would seem a good analogy, but operating a motor vehicle on public roads is legally a "privilege," not a right. 

People with disabilities have the right to go anywhere anyone else can go ("access rights"). For many, service dogs make that possible. It isn't a choice. Requiring "certification" and "registration" is restricting or denying access given to those who are not disabled--and that violates ADA (which is based in part in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment). 

If a state, for example, passed a law requiring all service dogs to be "certified" under their procedures, and to be "registered," in order to have public access, there would be problems. Being more restrictive than federal law, it would probably never be passed; if it were, it would probably be thrown out in the first court case.

Further, if that were required, registration and certification would have to be available everywhere (you couldn't require people to travel to a few central locations in order to get the dog certified), and at little to no cost to the people seeking certification and registration for their dogs. It would have to be available, probably at least one day a week. From what people who have looked at this in other states have said, it would take at least one "certifier" per county. That would add up to significant cost, and could still be challenged in court. 

Then you have the whole problem of applying the law to visitors from other states. . . .

On the other hand, if a state passed a law that recognized and allowing people to chose to not "certify" and "register" their service dogs, but granting additional privileges or protections to those who _did _"certify" and "register" their dogs, absent other problems it would probably survive court challenges. If it were done right, you could likely even get a lot of service dog handlers to support the legislation. 

One way to do this would be to pass a law that criminalized interfering with a service dog/handler team, harassing a service dog, or injuring a service dog, _as long as the service dog was "certified" and "registered" in accordance with the state's laws._ This would seem (meaning, "I'm not a lawyer but this is how I understand it") to not take away anything under ADA, and the additional protections would be a powerful incentive for many to "certify" and "register" their dog. 

A better way--one that wouldn't require the additional bureaucracy and expense for certification and registration--would be to do what Missouri has already done. Missouri Revised Statues Section 209.204 makes impersonating "a person with a disability for the purpose of receiving the accommodations regarding service dogs under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq." a criminal act. That alone would make it far easier to prevent the "fakers" that have so many upset, with minimal impact on the rights of those with a disability. 

Missouri also has a law (Missouri Revised Statues Section 209.202) that makes it a crime to specifically injure or harass a service dog.

No certification. No registration. No conflict with federal law. No cost to the state (beyond enforcement of the law), and no court challenges.


----------



## Oisin's Aoire

This exactly what I was talking about..as a firearms instructor / competitor who lives in the People's Republic of New Jersey I am against and sensitive to any legislation that strips someone of basic rights. The right to bear arms is in our Constitution. It does not restrict that right to behind one's doorstep. Laws against carry are unconstitutional to begin with , and most states ( mine included) have gone before the SCOTUS to prove they are not violation the Constitution. NJ is a "may issue" meaning you have to provide justifiable need to exercise your RIGHT. We were recently shut down by the Senate in our attempt to become a "shall issue" ( which means unless you are a prohibited person through having a record or a commitment record , you get to exercise your right ) . The reason given it had been in place so so long , if it was violating the Constitution it would have come before the Senate sooner. That is what complacency gets you. Illinois just recently won their case to allow carry for those who are not felons or mentally ill. 

Anyway , my point is , I hate legislation. BUT if something gets abused enough , rights will be stripped against your wishes. 

So sometimes you have to give an inch to prevent an all out nanny policy regarding your rights . On the downside you know what can happen when you give an inch. 

There does need to be a solution. Like I said , I am submerged in the ASD parent world and the idea of making your dog a service dog is on FIRE. To go through an agency there is a 2 year AT LEAST waiting list ..if you want one soon you need to have between 15 and 30 thousand to buy one.

There was a parent in my son's group who was proudly saying she ordered a vest for their dog Angus ( black lab) because he is wonderfully behaved blah blah blah and he barks when their son is getting into trouble or getting out the door.

This isn't going away , and I suspect as the problem grows you will see a mandatory standardized public access test.


----------



## ODINsFREKI

JustJim said:


> And that's where the analogy breaks down.
> 
> Montana's constitution does *not *recognize a rightto carry a firearm openly or concealed "anywhere in the state of Montana." The state outlaws any carry of firearms in schools, in some places local ordinances ban firearms in public assemblies/publicly owned buildings/parks, and federal law bans firearms in federal buildings. Your CCW permit came with conditions (had to be 18, pass a background check, take classes) and there are even more places you can't carry (buildings owned or leased by federal/state/local government, banks or credit unions, rooms where alcohol is sold under a liquor license).
> 
> It actually does.
> Section
> 12.
> RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
> The right of any person to keep or bear arms
> in defense of his own home, person, and property,
> or
> in aid of the civil power when thereto legally
> summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the
> carrying of concealed weapons.
> 
> The concealed part has been modified by MCA. Old cowboy card tricks I guess.
> 
> Federal laws dictate where you can go with your tools and most schools allow firearms if they are not taking federal money. The gun free school zone is up to the district. Most have taken the federal benefits and did this without permission of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You_ have the right to go to any of those places, but if you _choose_ to carry a firearm, you accept restrictions on where you can go, and in some cases (CCW) have to have explicit permission from the government to do so (a CCW permit).
> 
> Similarly, on the surface, driving would seem a good analogy, but operating a motor vehicle on public roads is legally a "privilege," not a right.
> 
> Operating a motor vehicle is commerce. If you are a private operation using your right to travel, you asserted your rights. Sovereign groups do it all the time here in Montana.
> 
> 
> People with disabilities have the right to go anywhere anyone else can go ("access rights"). For many, service dogs make that possible. It isn't a choice. Requiring "certification" and "registration" is restricting or denying access given to those who are not disabled--and that violates ADA (which is based in part in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment).
> 
> If a state, for example, passed a law requiring all service dogs to be "certified" under their procedures, and to be "registered," in order to have public access, there would be problems. Being more restrictive than federal law, it would probably never be passed; if it were, it would probably be thrown out in the first court case.
> 
> Section 1.
> POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY.
> All political
> powerisvestedin
> and derived
> from the people. All government
> ofright
> originates with the people, is founded upon their will only,
> and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.
> 
> We've done a lot of things that tick off the feds.
> 
> 
> Further, if that were required, registration and certification would have to be available everywhere (you couldn't require people to travel to a few central locations in order to get the dog certified), and at little to no cost to the people seeking certification and registration for their dogs. It would have to be available, probably at least one day a week. From what people who have looked at this in other states have said, it would take at least one "certifier" per county. That would add up to significant cost, and could still be challenged in court.
> 
> Then you have the whole problem of applying the law to visitors from other states. . . .
> 
> On the other hand, if a state passed a law that recognized and allowing people to chose to not "certify" and "register" their service dogs, but granting additional privileges or protections to those who _did _"certify" and "register" their dogs, absent other problems it would probably survive court challenges. If it were done right, you could likely even get a lot of service dog handlers to support the legislation.
> 
> One way to do this would be to pass a law that criminalized interfering with a service dog/handler team, harassing a service dog, or injuring a service dog, _as long as the service dog was "certified" and "registered" in accordance with the state's laws._ This would seem (meaning, "I'm not a lawyer but this is how I understand it") to not take away anything under ADA, and the additional protections would be a powerful incentive for many to "certify" and "register" their dog.
> 
> YOU'VE GOT IT! GREAT IDEA!
> 
> A better way--one that wouldn't require the additional bureaucracy and expense for certification and registration--would be to do what Missouri has already done. Missouri Revised Statues Section 209.204 makes impersonating "a person with a disability for the purpose of receiving the accommodations regarding service dogs under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq." a criminal act. That alone would make it far easier to prevent the "fakers" that have so many upset, with minimal impact on the rights of those with a disability.
> 
> This is a great idea but how do you enforce it without people suing your business for discrimination. Who would enforce it? The sheriff? They don't want to get into it over dogs. We can have the owner take the dog off property if it is out of control. Other than that, I have "permission" to ask the handler if it is a service dog and what tasks it was trained to do. You can also inform them that if the dog becomes a distraction to other visitors or shows signs that it is not properly trained it will have to be removed.
> 
> The guide dogs are more than welcome. The service dogs that come in with DHS and the FBI are awesome. The service dogs that come in with truly disabled people as a helper are awesome and welcome.
> 
> What I'm dealing with is a bunch of Canadians who got their bull stuffing certificate online so they can bring their yappy, poorly trained lap dog with them instead of doing the right thing and leaving it at home.
> 
> 
> 
> Missouri also has a law (Missouri Revised Statues Section 209.202) that makes it a crime to specifically injure or harass a service dog.
> 
> No certification. No registration. No conflict with federal law. No cost to the state (beyond enforcement of the law), and no court challenges.


We may agree to disagree on rights but we do have a problem here and I would like to see it addressed so the one bad egg doesn't spoil it for the whole bunch. The ADA protects individuals rights and the abuse of this great system needs to be addressed with lots of thought and precision.

Thanks for your input. You have some great ideas.


----------



## ODINsFREKI

Oisin's Aoire said:


> This exactly what I was talking about..as a firearms instructor / competitor who lives in the People's Republic of New Jersey I am against and sensitive to any legislation that strips someone of basic rights. The right to bear arms is in our Constitution. It does not restrict that right to behind one's doorstep. Laws against carry are unconstitutional to begin with , and most states ( mine included) have gone before the SCOTUS to prove they are not violation the Constitution. NJ is a "may issue" meaning you have to provide justifiable need to exercise your RIGHT. We were recently shut down by the Senate in our attempt to become a "shall issue" ( which means unless you are a prohibited person through having a record or a commitment record , you get to exercise your right ) . The reason given it had been in place so so long , if it was violating the Constitution it would have come before the Senate sooner. That is what complacency gets you. Illinois just recently won their case to allow carry for those who are not felons or mentally ill.
> 
> Anyway , my point is , I hate legislation. BUT if something gets abused enough , rights will be stripped against your wishes.
> 
> So sometimes you have to give an inch to prevent an all out nanny policy regarding your rights . On the downside you know what can happen when you give an inch.
> 
> There does need to be a solution. Like I said , I am submerged in the ASD parent world and the idea of making your dog a service dog is on FIRE. To go through an agency there is a 2 year AT LEAST waiting list ..if you want one soon you need to have between 15 and 30 thousand to buy one.
> 
> There was a parent in my son's group who was proudly saying she ordered a vest for their dog Angus ( black lab) because he is wonderfully behaved blah blah blah and he barks when their son is getting into trouble or getting out the door.
> 
> This isn't going away , and I suspect as the problem grows you will see a mandatory standardized public access test.


I've got a lot of respect for a man or woman who goes against the grain of their nanny state! Your profession over there would be like me selling green peace concert tickets in rural Montana! 

Keep up the good work!


----------



## Oisin's Aoire

Thanks  It is very difficult. I teach mostly women ( both martial arts and firearms) and sadly many of them are there because they have already been victimized. 

I think the firearms / service dog analogy is a good one..because the government can and will strip your rights if there is enough disdain in the population for something that is your right. 

In NJ , it is a 500 dollar fine if you are caught passing off a pet as an SD or SDIT. In NJ a SDIT has all the same access privileges as a SD. Since there is no official body that trains , no certification , no anything...how would you prove a dog is not an SDIT? 

If jaw dropping scenarios like leg lifting on food stands in grocery stores keeps happening , there WILL wind up being officialism to the whole process.

The whole few bad apples thing.


----------



## marbury

I disagree with the firearms/SD parallel. There is no reason that a person without a firearm NEEDS one. They do fine on their own. Like JustJim said,



> *People with disabilities who use a service dog are seeking equal access through the use of service dogs to ameliorate some effects of a disability that would otherwise prevent them from having equal access.*


Firearms are a privilege, as are service animals. Neither are a right. But firearms serve no inherent purpose and a SD does. I, as a liberal anti-gun individual, do not seek to own a firearm so I can feel I have equal access or rights to folks that choose to carry their own. Having a weapon does not suddenly give me the freedom to leave my home, perform independent tasks, or find employment. It just means I have some extra metal on my person and a piece of paper in my wallet. A person with a legitimate SD reaps immense benefit from their partner.

Now, I agree that SD/ADA legislation can be parroted from gun owner laws with some modifications. I just disagree with the parallel.


----------



## crackem

gagsd said:


> Any dog out of control or not house trained can be required to leave .


and that should be the only law we need. That's it, nothing else. Nothing about papers, no papers, disability, faking, what questions can be asked, who trained it, how does your inability to say "s"'s require you have a SD or any other BS. If your dog is out of control, you're gone, if not, you're in. Problem ****ing solved. and only 1 law 



marbury said:


> Technically yes... but try telling that to a hot-blooded person who thinks the law is on their side. Oy, the yelling bouts our poor manager used to have to endure!


if a dog is out of control, i'm sure I can yell more loudly. More likely it would be asking them to leave then picking up the phone to call the police after I've snapped a picture of them with my cell phone. Let them think the law is on their side, they'll find out soon enough.



volcano said:


> . Ive never seen a service dog in my life that I remember, is this an issue?


No kidding. I have seen service dogs, i'm sure i've seen a couple fakes, but where do you people live that you have this big of a problem? I rarely run into dogs where they're allowed in public period, let alone where they are restricted. I can't imagine we're overflowing with fake SD's in this country



volcano said:


> Yeah I hate when the dogs keep cutting in line as if they didnt see me. Where is the service dog thing a problem, and why are you too wimpy to tell people off if you know theyre abusing it? You actually want to make laws to do what youre scared to speak up about???


just to reiterate the point



Xeph said:


> I dunno. Let's ask the farm boys of Wisconsin and see what answer we get.


I was driving on roads at age 12 and it was legal. I didn't have a license, but I certainly had training. We were driving in fields for farm work at 10, with someone of course and at 12 we could be on the roads. Of course i was much more afraid of parents and grandparents if I screwed up than any policeman.

beyond that, I don't care to try and relate guns and service dogs. It shouldn't even matter.


----------



## Oisin's Aoire

marbury said:


> I disagree with the firearms/SD parallel. There is no reason that a person without a firearm NEEDS one. They do fine on their own. Like JustJim said,
> 
> Firearms are a privilege, as are service animals. Neither are a right. But firearms serve no inherent purpose and a SD does. I, as a liberal anti-gun individual, do not seek to own a firearm so I can feel I have equal access or rights to folks that choose to carry their own. Having a weapon does not suddenly give me the freedom to leave my home, perform independent tasks, or find employment. It just means I have some extra metal on my person and a piece of paper in my wallet. A person with a legitimate SD reaps immense benefit from their partner.
> 
> Now, I agree that SD/ADA legislation can be parroted from gun owner laws with some modifications. I just disagree with the parallel.


Well , we can agree to disagree about firearms ownership.

The parallel is that the Constitution of The U.S.A claims bearing arms is a "right" . The Supreme Court upholds that it is a "right" . Despite anyone's opinion on it. I did not look to see where you are posting from , if you out of the USA you're correct - it is not a right . But here in the USA it is . 

My point is that just because something is a "right" does not mean the gubmint won't take it away or restrict it. So if SDs behaving badly becomes an issue , you will probably see licensing coming down the pike.


----------



## JustJim

Because of the rights argument, changes in firearms laws can be a useful analogy for changes in disability rights laws. It is an _analogy_, because no state allows the same access to someone carrying a firearm as is allowed to someone not carrying a firearm. On the other hand, people with a service dog are supposed to have the same access as someone without a service dog. 

Laws changing the implementation of ADA, such as changes or restrictions to how a "service dog" is defined, should be carefully considered. They seem to fall into two approaches: one places the burden of compliance on people with disabilities (registration/certification schemes), the other places the burden on people who have a problem (fakers and people with poorly-trained dogs). 

There is no guarantee that any new law won't be challenged in court. The best you can hope for is to get a law that will survive court challenges. 

The "optional certification" approach I sketched out is going to be challenged in court, for a lot of reasons, but with the proper implementation it would probably survive court challenges. Risk to business owners will _increase_ because inevitably, someone will be denied access because they don't have the optional state certification. (Face it: business owners don't are currently unwilling or unable to train employees now, increasing the complexity of the law will only make that situation worse.) 

Enforcement of a law like that is not something I've looked at. I think a law such as that is invasive of personal privacy and discriminatory, and unnecessarily restricts the rights of people with disabilities for the convenience of others. But if the law is in place, and a sheriff won't enforce it, it sounds like it is time to seek a new sheriff through recall, lawsuits, etc. 

For business owners, the Missouri approach has a lot to offer. It transitions from what is allowed under ADA (asking if it is a service dog, and what tasks the dog is trained to perform), to giving business and law enforcement guidelines to handle problem situations. Unlike the other schemes commonly discussed, it places the burden of proof onto people who are causing problems, rather than on the people who are following the rules.


----------



## Oisin's Aoire

JustJim said:


> Unlike the other schemes commonly discussed, it places the burden of proof onto people who are causing problems, rather than on the people who are following the rules.


^this.


----------



## Xeph

It amazes me that so many business DO NOT train their employees how to properly address a (possible) SD team when they enter the business. It amazes me that the ones that DO know their rights, don't allow their employees to exercise those rights!

It is not MY fault that businesses are not doing what they are legally allowed to do because they're afraid of lawsuits. If they go about it the right way, they'll be in the clear.

I shouldn't be penalized because others don't exercise their rights.

All these fakers? I have probably only seen one or two. It is RARE I see other SDs in public. If I see anything, it is puppies being trained for CCI...but no other SD teams, let alone fakers.

Most fakers aren't in public. They're trying to score free flight transport or something similar.

People need to educate themselves. Cripes, all the people calling for more legislation are generally those who DON'T utilize a service dog. Has anybody noticed that?!


----------



## Oisin's Aoire

I'm seeing quite a few autism service dogs in NJ. I think you will start to really see an explosion of autism service dogs all over. 

There are all these bloggers and FB pages that encourage it which I think is great..BUT parents are copping on to the fact that there is little to nothing to prevent them from teaching their dog to bark if their kid wanders out a door , or if their dog is big enough they are putting buddy leashes on the dog so the kid does not bolt. And Viola , you have a SD.

In my son's school for the disabled there are about 10 kids with SDs. They do not go to school with them , if they did the parents would have to be there as handlers ( the school is for age 8 and under) . But they are all there at pick up. You can absolutely tell which ones were actually trained as SDs. And which ones were not. Just by the way they look around and investigate , sniff around , ay attention to all the people and sights around them ,etc.

Autism is 1 in 50 right now , and with web sharing , blogs , etc I hear almost every parent wishing they could afford a SD or wishing it was not a 2 to 3 year wait..then more often these days someone is chiming in that you can train an existing dog. Yourself. 

That is exactly what made me look into what I am doing. The viral word of mouth that you can train your own dog if you want.

Me , I am going through a recognized trainer who regularly trains service dogs ( you can buy one for 15 to 30 K from her but she will also evaluate an existing dog). She makes no guarantee that any dog will pass , in fact tells you few make the grade. We're taking a chance , my older two dogs would not pass even though they are extremely well trained. My boxer mix could easily pass CGC..but he is so easy going he would not care if my son backflipped off a cliff. My Mastiff has the potential but like I mentioned before she is shy , and kind of gross ( sorry Greta , mommy loves you but everyone else would go ewwww) , and she is real protective over my son. Not going to cut it. 

But now , people are reading the conditions and seeing nothing regulated ..and they are absolutely left right and center declaring that they are training their dog to be an SD ( in NJ SDIT with his trainer/handler has all the same access rights as a SD) . 

Pet dogs with owner bought vests tethered to an autistic child so he does not bolt is becoming a REAL common thing to do . Since I am so submerged in the world of autistic parenting I see it and hear it all the time. And the MINUTE that lady with the autistic kid gets an SD on Real Housewives Of NJ , people will google it , and they will read into it as a DYI SD can legally be pulled off. I literally heard a parent friend of mine say " hey , Angus can do all that! Where do I get a vest?" I gave them my trainer's number and said " you need to get Angus evaluated through a real trainer first " That is not the law , that was my advice . I did not clarify it was just my advice , so maybe they will go the right route. And maybe Angus can do that. Who knows? 

Like I said , as a firearms instructor , competitor , and enthusiast I am the last person to want legislation..I just think it will come . Like firearms laws , it would only make things difficult for those who intend to actually follow the law. Infinity.


----------



## ODINsFREKI

Xeph said:


> It amazes me that so many business DO NOT train their employees how to properly address a (possible) SD team when they enter the business. It amazes me that the ones that DO know their rights, don't allow their employees to exercise those rights!
> 
> It is not MY fault that businesses are not doing what they are legally allowed to do because they're afraid of lawsuits. If they go about it the right way, they'll be in the clear.
> 
> I shouldn't be penalized because others don't exercise their rights.
> 
> All these fakers? I have probably only seen one or two. It is RARE I see other SDs in public. If I see anything, it is puppies being trained for CCI...but no other SD teams, let alone fakers.
> 
> Most fakers aren't in public. They're trying to score free flight transport or something similar.
> 
> People need to educate themselves. Cripes, all the people calling for more legislation are generally those who DON'T utilize a service dog. Has anybody noticed that?!



All depends what area you are in. Come on over to Montana on the NW side and you will see at least one BS SD a day. 99.9% Canadians who want to take their dogs with them when they come down to the Canadian equivalent of Mexico. I guess boarding their dogs up there is very expensive. 

There are really no clear answers on how to question a BS SD. It's obvious to spot a real working dog. We have them here all the time. Some of the best trained GSD in the world end up with the boarder patrol guys and if I'm lucky, they will show off their dogs for me! 

Just trying to figure it all out and looking forward to educating people in this area on how to address this growing problem that I have seen increase dramatically over the last few years. 

Thanks for all your help with the solution.


----------



## ODINsFREKI

marbury said:


> I disagree with the firearms/SD parallel. There is no reason that a person without a firearm NEEDS one. They do fine on their own. Like JustJim said,
> 
> Firearms are a privilege, as are service animals. Neither are a right. But firearms serve no inherent purpose and a SD does. I, as a liberal anti-gun individual, do not seek to own a firearm so I can feel I have equal access or rights to folks that choose to carry their own. Having a weapon does not suddenly give me the freedom to leave my home, perform independent tasks, or find employment. It just means I have some extra metal on my person and a piece of paper in my wallet. A person with a legitimate SD reaps immense benefit from their partner.
> 
> Now, I agree that SD/ADA legislation can be parroted from gun owner laws with some modifications. I just disagree with the parallel.


Having served this country in the US Infantry Army, I respect your first amendment right. It would only be neighborly for you to respect my second amendment right. Without our rights, you wouldn't be able to type your anti-gun agenda and propaganda online. You would be arrested if the policy was to have mandatory training and firearms ownership. 

It's not so much a parallel of gun rights and ADA rights. It was just a similarity. What it comes down to is INHERENT RIGHTS, not things you need permission for. When people abuse their rights, they are taken away i.e. prison or some form of penalty.

Come hang out in the Bob Marshall sometime without a firearm. The bears, wolves and cats will love you! It's your choice to carry or not. Good luck with the pepper spray and bells!

p.s. your GSD is a weapon, a liability, a tool, the same as a firearm. it takes a responsible owner to operate.


----------



## ODINsFREKI

Oisin's Aoire said:


> I'm seeing quite a few autism service dogs in NJ. I think you will start to really see an explosion of autism service dogs all over.
> 
> There are all these bloggers and FB pages that encourage it which I think is great..BUT parents are copping on to the fact that there is little to nothing to prevent them from teaching their dog to bark if their kid wanders out a door , or if their dog is big enough they are putting buddy leashes on the dog so the kid does not bolt. And Viola , you have a SD.
> 
> In my son's school for the disabled there are about 10 kids with SDs. They do not go to school with them , if they did the parents would have to be there as handlers ( the school is for age 8 and under) . But they are all there at pick up. You can absolutely tell which ones were actually trained as SDs. And which ones were not. Just by the way they look around and investigate , sniff around , ay attention to all the people and sights around them ,etc.
> 
> Autism is 1 in 50 right now , and with web sharing , blogs , etc I hear almost every parent wishing they could afford a SD or wishing it was not a 2 to 3 year wait..then more often these days someone is chiming in that you can train an existing dog. Yourself.
> 
> That is exactly what made me look into what I am doing. The viral word of mouth that you can train your own dog if you want.
> 
> Me , I am going through a recognized trainer who regularly trains service dogs ( you can buy one for 15 to 30 K from her but she will also evaluate an existing dog). She makes no guarantee that any dog will pass , in fact tells you few make the grade. We're taking a chance , my older two dogs would not pass even though they are extremely well trained. My boxer mix could easily pass CGC..but he is so easy going he would not care if my son backflipped off a cliff. My Mastiff has the potential but like I mentioned before she is shy , and kind of gross ( sorry Greta , mommy loves you but everyone else would go ewwww) , and she is real protective over my son. Not going to cut it.
> 
> But now , people are reading the conditions and seeing nothing regulated ..and they are absolutely left right and center declaring that they are training their dog to be an SD ( in NJ SDIT with his trainer/handler has all the same access rights as a SD) .
> 
> Pet dogs with owner bought vests tethered to an autistic child so he does not bolt is becoming a REAL common thing to do . Since I am so submerged in the world of autistic parenting I see it and hear it all the time. And the MINUTE that lady with the autistic kid gets an SD on Real Housewives Of NJ , people will google it , and they will read into it as a DYI SD can legally be pulled off. I literally heard a parent friend of mine say " hey , Angus can do all that! Where do I get a vest?" I gave them my trainer's number and said " you need to get Angus evaluated through a real trainer first " That is not the law , that was my advice . I did not clarify it was just my advice , so maybe they will go the right route. And maybe Angus can do that. Who knows?
> 
> Like I said , as a firearms instructor , competitor , and enthusiast I am the last person to want legislation..I just think it will come . Like firearms laws , it would only make things difficult for those who intend to actually follow the law. Infinity.


Good information here. Thanks. The Canadians are just doing this for travel purposes and we have not seen this done for autism. The last time I had a problem, it was a family who had a beautiful little girl who had downs. Their service dog was not trained at all and the owner was very arrogant with it. He was running around the property with no leash, dog running freely and crapping wherever it wanted. I told him to get his dog under control and he became upset. I told him that we would ask him to leave if the dog did not act professional in public service dog or not. He then put the dog on a leash and the girl was around the dog the rest of the week.

This was a very fine line of getting a hot head to sue us under the ADA laws so we had to be very careful. We documented the behavior of the dog on the property and covered our butts. Guys like this give trained dogs a bad image and that needs to end.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

This, in blue. 

I don't know that this is the 'law' now because in the U.S. we have very limited access to public places with dogs.

Still the point is very valid and you gotta ask yourself how come this is so much harder in the U.S.?

It seems counter-intuitive, especially in the U.S. which is so knee jerk against regulations sometimes, that more regulations can lead to more freedom, but it's true. Smart and properly enforced regulations can work and actually allow people with SD and pet dogs the freedom to access more public places. Invariably the slippery slope argument comes up but there's two sides to that slope (see Glass Steagall).

Mrs K. gave some interesting input in another thread on what seemed like onerous rules to us in the U.S. actually rewarded the responsible dog owners with MORE freedom in Germany.

It would follow that this would open the doors much wider (so to speak) for SD teams as well.

Instead we have to create more and more special rules for special groups and it gets more and more complicated and then problems arise ....it's all very inefficient.




crackem said:


> how do you stop it? simple, well mannered dogs are allowed in public places, ones that aren't, aren't. Any dog disrupting anything are immediately tossed along with their owners, papers or not. That is the law now and it's probably the only law we need. Then nobody will fake papers because there will be no need. and maybe more people would be a better dog owner like people in other countries because they will be expected to have a well mannered dog when out and about and if not, they get to sit at home.


----------



## gagsd

Fake therapy dogs seen in New York as owners get fake tags


----------



## marbury

ODINsFREKI said:


> Having served this country in the US Infantry Army, I respect your first amendment right. It would only be neighborly for you to respect my second amendment right. Without our rights, you wouldn't be able to type your anti-gun agenda and propaganda online.


_Propaganda?_ LOL! Wow... you people always do feel so persecuted, don't you? With nation-wide laws changing in your favor, I can totally see why you feel such a strong urge to call my non-accusatory viewpoint _propaganda_. 

I have no problem with others carrying weapons. I live in GEORGIA, clearly I'm not at odds with it. Y'all feel free to shoot whatever and whomever you please, or just keep in your purse because you feel safer. I just unsubscribe from it myself. If you feel that it constitutes slander or propaganda perhaps I'm unfamiliar with the meanings behind those words.

As for my dogs, yes... all dogs could be classified as weapons. And that bat you bought for your son's baseball practice is a weapon. As is that lawn chair. And the battery you took out of your boat. And those fireworks in the garage. And that aerosol container of paint in the shed. And US! I mean, people can be BRUTAL! I'd bet I could be murdered with bare hands by some folks. And some people should require a license to be in public themselves, with how they act.

At the end of the day, all this has nothing to do with ADA laws. I still maintain that fundamentally firearms and service animals are incongruent. That's the long and short of it. If we want to have a discussion about right-to-carry and second amendment rights I'm sure the Chat Room has a lot of willing participants.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I don't think the mods would allow 2A arguments on this site at all, every thread I've seen it pop up ends up closed. They usually are classified as political and that's not allowed on this board.

Agree it's not an apt comparison tho.....




marbury said:


> _<snipped>_
> At the end of the day, all this has nothing to do with ADA laws. I still maintain that fundamentally firearms and service animals are incongruent. That's the long and short of it. If we want to have a discussion about right-to-carry and second amendment rights I'm sure the Chat Room has a lot of willing participants.


----------



## ODINsFREKI

marbury said:


> _Propaganda?_ LOL! Wow... you people always do feel so persecuted, don't you? With nation-wide laws changing in your favor, I can totally see why you feel such a strong urge to call my non-accusatory viewpoint _propaganda_.
> 
> I have no problem with others carrying weapons. I live in GEORGIA, clearly I'm not at odds with it. Y'all feel free to shoot whatever and whomever you please, or just keep in your purse because you feel safer. I just unsubscribe from it myself. If you feel that it constitutes slander or propaganda perhaps I'm unfamiliar with the meanings behind those words.
> 
> As for my dogs, yes... all dogs could be classified as weapons. And that bat you bought for your son's baseball practice is a weapon. As is that lawn chair. And the battery you took out of your boat. And those fireworks in the garage. And that aerosol container of paint in the shed. And US! I mean, people can be BRUTAL! I'd bet I could be murdered with bare hands by some folks. And some people should require a license to be in public themselves, with how they act.
> 
> At the end of the day, all this has nothing to do with ADA laws. I still maintain that fundamentally firearms and service animals are incongruent. That's the long and short of it. If we want to have a discussion about right-to-carry and second amendment rights I'm sure the Chat Room has a lot of willing participants.


I apologize if you feel offended. Propaganda is not the appropriate word to use. However, I believe propaganda was used to make people believe that it is a privilege as opposed to in inherent right. Hopefully, we can agree to respectfully disagree.

Your points do coincide with some of mine. A bat is a tool. It should not be licensed.


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom

Have been lurking on the thread felt the need to speak up re my support for this legislation. I was at a victim's conference in may that annually is presented by the AG's office in Ohio. I met several candidate dogs from Canine's for Independence and a graduate of the program. who is a courthouse dog. I was impressed to say the least and have started to donate to them. reading the literature re their work w/ veterans and other folks .It was interesting and every time a fake service dog goes into a public or private establishment and acts inappropriately it puts those w/ legitimate needs and trained dogs at risk. BTW new pups are graduating in the next two weeks from the Ohio training center.


----------



## martemchik

This discussion has gone on before. The truth is...its the PDAs that keep these laws off the books. The reason the training organizations want these laws is because it will kill the owner/handler trained dog market and leave the service dog market to them. Then people will wait years for dogs they need because the truth is those organizations can't train enough dogs for everyone that needs one. That will lead to "certified trainers" charging thousands of dollars for trained service dogs...awesome for people that are already disabled and probably don't have $10000 sitting around for a dog...actually not many people have that kind of money sitting around for a dog.

But the funniest thing to me is...when has our government ever done anything right? Any type of regulation over something that is clearly NOT a problem is just stupid IMO. I don't see many service dogs, the ones I do, are legitimate. I could care less about people passing their yorkies as service dogs...I don't see it, and if I did see it, WHO CARES?!?! (see above paragraph on what happens when laws get instituted). We all want to believe these service organizations are doing the right thing, but there are always other reasons they want laws instituted...and for some reason I've never met a single service dog handler that was upset about the laws being the way they are now.


----------



## JustJim

Xeph said:


> It amazes me that so many business DO NOT train their employees how to properly address a (possible) SD team when they enter the business. It amazes me that the ones that DO know their rights, don't allow their employees to exercise those rights!


As it was explained to me, the strategy is that the chance of a lawsuit for calling out a legitimate service dog team is higher than the chance of a lawsuit from someone injured by a fake service dog, and lower than the cost of fines etc from regulatory agencies for allowing the dogs in the business to begin with. 



Xeph said:


> People need to educate themselves. Cripes, all the people calling for more legislation are generally those who DON'T utilize a service dog. Has anybody noticed that?!


The majority of people calling for more regulation tend to not be service dog users, but there have been calls from within the community of service dog users and other interested parties. As Martemchik pointed out, many training organizations seek such regulation out of self-interest. Some service dog handlers have sought (and presumably, continue to seek) certification and registration, thinking it is in their own interests. 

(Those discussions can become rather heated. After one such discussion degenerated into personal attacks that continued offline, I withdrew from participation in the community of service dog activists/educators, and ceased development of a comprehensive autism-specific service dog training program. Judging by the nature of their attacks, that was probably their goal in the first place.) 

Until someone provides actual numbers of "fakers" and "problem dogs" indicating that a problem actually exists, I see no option to regarding calls for increased regulation, certification, etc, as discriminatory and a denial of rights. A fight over this could get really nasty, and have a lot of unintended consequences. I would hope that the larger community of service dog users, interested parties, and members of the public can find a win-win solution before it reaches that point.


----------



## DaniFani

I'm with Martemchik, I really don't think people should care as much....it's usually little yorkies in purses, and even if it is a big dog, like PP pointed out, the dog get's out of control, it will then be asked to leave. I don't see it as a huge problem. I understand that it's popping up more and more in the Autistic community, but I just see people having their dog be out of control one or two times and it be over. I mean, I have an 18 month old, and I can't imagine keeping a crazy dog under control, while at the same time keeping tabs on my child....even more so if my child was a special needs child with impulse control issues. I would think a few times in public of both being out of control would be enough to cause the parents to pause before bringing the dog with them again....but I could be completely wrong....


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Eeehhh enough knee jerk reactions to go around.

There's elegant solutions that incentivize responsible people and then there's the follow the money as you mention. Ironically the reason some regs go awry is because of what you cite, follow the money, loops holes and palm greasing. Regulatory capture does not equal all rules/regs are bad tho. They are two different animals.

I'm not sure if this operates on state level or Fed level but if there isn't a standardized certification program (??) (where like home schoolers kids have to pass tests or to get a driver's license you pass a test) that is open to qualified people needing assistance dogs. Whether you are an owner trainer or business that trains service dogs, same test applies.

Should just be that simple but as long as we have people freaking out about 'regulations' and business owners freaking out about liability issues this will be nothing but a confounding uniquely U.S. style kerfuffle that actually aids and abets those who want 'fake' service dogs.

Round and round we go....



martemchik said:


> This discussion has gone on before. The truth is...its the PDAs that keep these laws off the books. The reason the training organizations want these laws is because it will kill the owner/handler trained dog market and leave the service dog market to them. Then people will wait years for dogs they need because the truth is those organizations can't train enough dogs for everyone that needs one. That will lead to "certified trainers" charging thousands of dollars for trained service dogs...awesome for people that are already disabled and probably don't have $10000 sitting around for a dog...actually not many people have that kind of money sitting around for a dog.
> 
> But the funniest thing to me is...when has our government ever done anything right? Any type of regulation over something that is clearly NOT a problem is just stupid IMO. I don't see many service dogs, the ones I do, are legitimate. I could care less about people passing their yorkies as service dogs...I don't see it, and if I did see it, WHO CARES?!?! (see above paragraph on what happens when laws get instituted). We all want to believe these service organizations are doing the right thing, but there are always other reasons they want laws instituted...and for some reason I've never met a single service dog handler that was upset about the laws being the way they are now.


----------



## ODINsFREKI

Sorry to have opened such a huge can of worms. We have a considerable problem with fake SD here in the tourist areas near the boarder of Montana. Not only does it give legit SD teams a bad rep, it creates a problem with other visitors and private land owners who have chosen to restrict pets on their property for legitimate reasons. 

A true service dog should be able to go wherever they want. I don't care if you paid 10K for your dog or did it yourself. If it acts professional and is of use to you, it should eat, sleep and drink with you.  The liability falls upon the owner if their yapping mutt bites a kid or spooks a half million dollar horse into a fence. I hope it doesn't come to this because when it does, it will only damage the people who really need a service dog to better their life.

I have learned some good information here and thank you all for your insight and experience. Let's hope that things only get better for the service dog community around the globe.

Peace.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I live in a somewhat rural area so I rarely see SDs around here.

What I do see, often, are people with handicapped tags on/in their cars park in a handicapped spot and stride into the store with nary a cane nor walker or oxygen tank in sight.

It would follow, if people misuse handicap parking they would try to misuse the label of service dog as well.

I bet it's frustrating as heck for those who really need SDs.





ODINsFREKI said:


> Sorry to have opened such a huge can of worms. We have a considerable problem with fake SD here in the tourist areas near the boarder of Montana. Not only does it give legit SD teams a bad rep, it creates a problem with other visitors and private land owners who have chosen to restrict pets on their property for legitimate reasons.
> 
> A true service dog should be able to go wherever they want. I don't care if you paid 10K for your dog or did it yourself. If it acts professional and is of use to you, it should eat, sleep and drink with you.  The liability falls upon the owner if their yapping mutt bites a kid or spooks a half million dollar horse into a fence. I hope it doesn't come to this because when it does, it will only damage the people who really need a service dog to better their life.
> 
> I have learned some good information here and thank you all for your insight and experience. Let's hope that things only get better for the service dog community around the globe.
> 
> Peace.


----------



## KodyK

Couple of thoughts.....

1. To the comment about handicapped parking - please keep in mind that many disabilities are invisible. I have friends who have handicapped parking tags who don't use wheelchairs or oxygen tanks but have prostethetic legs you might not notice at first. They've been yelled and have had threatening notes left on their car. It's always best to give the person the benefit of the doubt, frankly. (And I'm a disabled person saying this.)

2. In regards to service dogs - I really wish fake service dogs didn't get so much media attention. Don't get me wrong, I think anyone who fakes a service dog is really awful and immoral, but the more media attention it gets, the more suspician will be placed on real service dog users, and the more likely it is that harsher laws will be passed, which I don't think any service dog user really wants. 

I shared this story in another thread, but I"ll share it here as well.

I"m legally blind. I have partial vision, but that pretty much goes away in dimly lit areas. My dog, Corey, is a guide dog. She is always in a harness with a "Don't Pet Me, I'm Working" sign on. If you see her, there's no doubt she's working (or in training, which many people assume, because I "don't look blind" whatever that means.)

I walked into a movie theater last month - a dark area so I couldn't see anything, not even my friends standing next to me - and immediately hear a woman start shrieking about how I have a dog. She didn't work at the theater, so I kept moving on. Meanwhile, as I go to give the theater worker my ticket, I hear this woman telling everyone she can how I'm "Not blind!" and that I "looked right at her" - which, if i did, I didn't know it. To this day I couldn't tell you what hte woman looked like.

The theater at first had no problem with Corey or I. This woman continued to scream about us though and even followed my friends and I into the bathroom and started threatening to call the cops. I continued to ignore her, as did my dog, and I proceeded to go wtih my friends to an upstairs lobby to wait until we could enter our theater.

We were approached after that by a woman who worked for the theater who wanted to see proof that Corey was a service dog.

I told her very clearly that that was illegal. She attempted to make it sound like ti was for my protection - that she had to report this woman to the manager because she was threatening to call the cops and she knew her manager would want to know my dog was a real service dog. Apparently this woman was downstairs telling everyone I wasnt' blind because "blind people don't have expressions on their face." Anyway, I told her again it was illegal, but at this point I was upset and stressed and I just wanted to see the movie (this was for my birthday, btw, so nice way to ruin a good night). I showed he the ID Fidelco gave me and aslo gave her a copy of the ADA.

In the end, the woman was allowed to stay, kept complaining about me, but went on to a different theater (we weren't even seeing hte same movie.)

This was all around the time several stories started breaking about "fake service dogs"

I hate that the media is giving this so much attention because it raises these suspicians. I HATE being acccused of faking my disability just because I don't wear sunglasses or because I have a little bit of vision. And I hate that when *I* am harassed, it's still my responsibility to proove that I have the right ot have the dog, even when I've done nothing wrong.

But if these stories keep getting attention, this is how it'll continue to be. Service dog users will continue to be asked for "proof." I only had "proof" because I went to a guide dog school, but I fully support people's right to owner-train, and I dont' want that infringed on because of a bunch of idiots who want to take their dogs everywhere with them despite not having disabilities.

So that was an exceedingly long post and I'll cut it off now. But I wanted to share a little insight.


----------



## Oisin's Aoire

I am so sorry that happened to you , and on your birthday too  Sounds like you kept your composure and took the higher road.

I agree about the media coverage..with a LOT of topics. I really do feel they make it so much worse.

Also , on top of raising suspicions , it gives people the idea that faking it is easy...


----------



## Mrs.K

You know, I can somewhat understand why people are selling their dogs off as Service Dogs because you can't go anywhere with your dogs but unfortunately it's the wrong people doing it. I could probably sell Indra off as a Service Dog and no one would question it because she is so darn well behaved but I know better and I won't do it. 

So far, any store we have been allowed into (last one was Auto Zone) she was a great representative of the breed. We had to wait four hours for the car battery to be charged and she was just laying on the cool floor, and slept. 

I would never sell my dog off as something as she is not but I certainly can understand why people get fed up and are like "Eff it, I'll just say he/she is a Service Dog." but again... it's the wrong people doing it and therefor cause more harm and yes it does hurt somebody. It will hurt the valid Service Dog handler who won't be let in because you and your rambunctious out of control dog, caused a fuzz. 

And I would never advocate selling your dog off as something they are not, either.


----------



## KodyK

Mrs. K - actually, it probably would be questioned, no matter how well behaved she is, because people almost automatically question. Corey IS a service dog and IS extremely well behaved, but I don't "look disabled" so people constantly question it. 

And as for the wrong people doing it . . . . anyone doing it is the wrong people, even if the dog is well behaved.

It should also be noted that poorly behaved service dogs can aslo be asked to leave a store. Just FYI. So these people faking service dogs with bad dogs . . . well, they can be asked to go without worry of the business being sued because even real service dogs have to leave if they act poorly.


----------



## Mrs.K

Thing is, I look disabled while I am not. :/ 

I agree, anyone doing it is the wrong people. I am not advocating to sell your dog off as something they are not. I'm just saying that I can somewhat understand why they are doing it. When I have my dog out, I simply ask if I can bring her in and so far, not a single store said no and I care about my dogs behavior. 

All people have to do is to train their dog and politely ask. There are still Motels out there that will allow dogs, you just have to look and eventually you will find one. On my drive down to Texas It was 1 out of 4 Motels that allowed dogs. You had to do some legwork and simply go from one Motel to another but I always found one that would let me bring all of my dogs (back then I did not have MaDeuce it was only Indra, Nala and Yukon). 

No dog is perfect. And even the most well behaved dog will act every once in a while, the best trained dog will have a bad day. There has got to be some room for mistakes and failures... they are animals and no machines. 

Again, I don't like that anybody is faking a Service Dog, I just can see why some people feel they have to do it. But that doesn't mean I like or condone it, it's still breaking the law.


----------



## Chicagocanine

It seems like a lot of people are under the misconception that if someone is "blind" it means they are completely without vision. However it's actually more common that people who are "blind"/visually impaired/legally blind do have some amount of vision. I have a family member with RP and he has some limited vision but still needs the aid of a white cane or his guide dog. Dark glasses would be counterproductive as he has night blindness, so if people don't see the dog or cane they often don't realize he is blind. Luckily I don't think he's had anyone actually accuse him of not needing his guide dog although he has had some access issues from businesses that don't know the laws and say "no dogs". 
When I was at a pet friendly event with my pet GSD and my family member was along with his guide dog (Lab), I found people would assume that my dog was also a service dog, when they saw his dog's guide harness. Even thought my dog was usually wearing just a leash and collar (and maybe a bandana because I thought it made her look more approachable) when out together people often just automatically assumed both dogs were working. 

For some reason I've had a lot of people assume my pet dogs are service dogs, usually when they were wearing a regular type of pet dog harness, a car seatbelt harness, a cooling vest in hot weather, or a pet type backpack- but also sometimes when they were just wearing a collar and leash. Of course I never took them places that pets were not allowed, except when my Golden was invited somewhere with our therapy dog programs. I did take them in public a lot to places that pets are allowed because they were well trained/behaved in public and loved people.
People would ask me if my dog was a service dog or I sometimes overheard people telling someone they were with, "don't bother that dog, it's working!" If they asked me, or were close enough for me to respond, I'd explain that my dog is not a service dog, and that if they'd like to pet her they can. I am not sure why people assumed that so often. I sometimes started putting a patch on my GSD's small backpack when we were in a place with a lot of people that said "Ask To Pet Me I'm Friendly" or a bandana that said "I'm Friendly" because I hoped it would help people realize she wasn't a service dog and they could pet her if they ask, and also to make people realize she's friendly since a lot of people seem to assume GSDs are aggressive. It didn't really make a lot of difference though.

I think it's interesting that it seems like more people around here seem to know that they can't pet/bother a service dog, even though there seem to actually not be very many service dogs in this area for some reason. I've only seen a handful of service dogs here in Chicago despite it being a big city.


----------



## KodyK

ChicagoCanine - You're exactly right. I have a disorder that' ssomewhat similar to RP, so I know exactly what you're talking about. I'm also night blind, so dark glasses are counter productive for me as well.

It's interesting your dogs are mistaken for service dogs. Most people clearly realize Corey is, but some assume I'm training her or they jsut don't notice the sign. People constnatly try to pet her and use the "Oh, I know I shouldn't, but I couldn't resist" excuse, which is obnoxious.


----------



## Mrs.K

I have the same experience when Indra was wearing her training vest. I found people respect the vest but they automatically assume they are some type of service dog. 

With her I do not have to worry about kids running up and petting her, or hugging her, she is trained for these interactions since we used her for Demonstrations. 

But still, you never know. So if I don't feel like having people just run up and pet her, I put her vest on but will never misrepresent her as something that she is not. If people ask about her I truthfully answer their questions. 

However, it's not a bad thing that people respect a vest or harness, it helps with reactive dogs because parents will hold their kids back and not let them go to a dog with a harness or a vest on. Whereas if they do not have a vest, it's fair game... people are just weird.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

O.k. I get what you are saying BUT given that parking up close to the store should be primarily for preference of those with limited mobility sounds to me that some are taking *more* advantage then they should. 

If a person who can walk into the store on prosthetic legs, to be clear I mean the people I've seen stride along without missing a beat and this blocks an elderly person with a handicap tag who must use a walker then yup...I can see threatening notes being left by the person with walker.

For the record I've never said anything or left notes but it does steam me sometimes because you know there are other people who really, really need to be able to park closer who can't walk very well at all. 



KodyK said:


> Couple of thoughts.....
> 
> 1. To the comment about handicapped parking - please keep in mind that many disabilities are invisible. I have friends who have handicapped parking tags who don't use wheelchairs or oxygen tanks but have prostethetic legs you might not notice at first. They've been yelled and have had threatening notes left on their car. It's always best to give the person the benefit of the doubt, frankly. (And I'm a disabled person saying this.)
> <snipped>.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

btw a really good book that I read recently discusses this topic:

Until Tuesday: A Wounded Warrior and the Golden Retriever Who Saved Him: Luis Carlos Montalvan, Bret Witter: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Chicagocanine

Gwenhwyfair said:


> O.k. I get what you are saying BUT given that parking up close to the store should be primarily for preference of those with limited mobility sounds to me that some are taking *more* advantage then they should.
> 
> If a person who can walk into the store on prosthetic legs, to be clear I mean the people I've seen stride along without missing a beat and this blocks an elderly person with a handicap tag who must use a walker then yup...I can see threatening notes being left by the person with walker.


The thing is, a person may need a handicap placard but still be able to 'stride along without missing a beat'. There are a lot of disabilities which are not visible. They may have a heart or lung condition which is worsened by walking long distances, a spinal condition, or a pain disorder. They may have something like fibromyalgia, MS or chronic fatigue syndrome. They may have a condition with a high risk of falls or that otherwise makes it dangerous for them to navigate a long distance in a busy parking lot. They may only be able to walk a limited distance (or only walk so far without pain) even though they look like they can walk fine, so they need to park closer in order to limit the distance they travel. They may have a condition that can flare up unexpectedly and need to be parked close.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

and/or they are abusing the system

and/or the definitions that allow people to get special permissions has become to broad.

All equal possibilities and one does not cancel the other out.

BTW I have a good friend who has fibromyalgia so bad sometimes she has great difficulty moving so I am sympathetic. 



Chicagocanine said:


> The thing is, a person may need a handicap placard but still be able to 'stride along without missing a beat'. There are a lot of disabilities which are not visible. They may have a heart or lung condition which is worsened by walking long distances, a spinal condition, or a pain disorder. They may have something like fibromyalgia, MS or chronic fatigue syndrome. They may have a condition with a high risk of falls or that otherwise makes it dangerous for them to navigate a long distance in a busy parking lot. They may only be able to walk a limited distance (or only walk so far without pain) even though they look like they can walk fine, so they need to park closer in order to limit the distance they travel. They may have a condition that can flare up unexpectedly and need to be parked close.


----------



## Gretchen

Chicagocanine said:


> The thing is, a person may need a handicap placard but still be able to 'stride along without missing a beat'. There are a lot of disabilities which are not visible. They may have a heart or lung condition which is worsened by walking long distances, a spinal condition, or a pain disorder. They may have something like fibromyalgia, MS or chronic fatigue syndrome. They may have a condition with a high risk of falls or that otherwise makes it dangerous for them to navigate a long distance in a busy parking lot. They may only be able to walk a limited distance (or only walk so far without pain) even though they look like they can walk fine, so they need to park closer in order to limit the distance they travel. They may have a condition that can flare up unexpectedly and need to be parked close.


Thanks for posting this. This is true of my daughter and sister. My sister has had severe rheumatoid arthritis since her 20's, she is 60 now. My daughter has mild cerebral palsy, but her condition was a lot worse when she was little. Not all disabled look old or are in a wheelchair.

One time when my daughter was around 4 or 5 years old, I parked in handicapped with a placard at the drug store with her. She could only walk if she held my hand, otherwise she'd fall down. She was too big for a stroller, so holding her hand for a short distance walk was usually OK. I had this lady follow me into the store and yell at me and make a scene in the store in front of my daughter. Then a couple years later at the beach, we used the placard. A policeman (in a wheelchair himself) questioned us about the disability. It upset my daughter so much, she is so self conscious about her disability, that she would not let me use the placard anymore. I think I used it once since then. I am grateful she does not need it now.


----------



## Konotashi

I have a question....

Say a medical alert dog (seizures, diabetes, what have you) is trained to alert their owner to an impending emergency with a bark, can they be asked to be removed if they alert their owner for an oncoming seizure/dangerously low blood sugar, etc?


----------



## ILGHAUS

Konotashi said:


> I have a question....
> 
> Say a medical alert dog (seizures, diabetes, what have you) is trained to alert their owner to an impending emergency with a bark, can they be asked to be removed if they alert their owner for an oncoming seizure/dangerously low blood sugar, etc?



Short answer - Yes, in certain circumstances.

There are other "alerts" that can be trained beside barking.


----------



## marbury

My last girlfriend is an awesome SCI. She looks 'normal' but, with no feeling or movement below her waist, is confined to a wheelchair. When we'd go out (Walmart especially) to go shopping people would actually have the balls to ask her if she "really needed that chair" because she "looked fine". I was always the one to get livid; she'd just ignore them.

Even though she drives her own vehicle and can get in and out without assistance she hates to park in "Van Only" spaces because she knows a lot of folks that require the extra clearance to get in or out of their vehicle and she can get by with less space. So it absolutely boils my blood when I see someone who is able-bodied (read: walking completely normally without aids, easily able to enter or exit their vehicle) parks in a Van-Only.

Sorry, off-topic rant. I'm just disgusted by some of the folks who do get handicap placards for things that don't involve mobility or access and ABUSE them.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

Stores need to know their rights. They can ask the person with the service dog what tasks the dog has been trained to do. If someone is faking their SD they most likely will stumble through that question.

And its up to US to report any dog, Service or otherwise, that does not behave appropriately in public. If you see a Service Dog lifting it's leg in a store or licking produce (really??) - tell the store manager. It's up to them to decide if they want to remove the person and their dog.

Heck, when I got to the pet store and I see someone's dog peeing on something I'm very vocal about letting them know! If you are going to bring your dog inside a store you should at LEAST make sure they are trained not to go inside!!


----------



## Chicagocanine

marbury said:


> Even though she drives her own vehicle and can get in and out without assistance she hates to park in "Van Only" spaces because she knows a lot of folks that require the extra clearance to get in or out of their vehicle and she can get by with less space. So it absolutely boils my blood when I see someone who is able-bodied (read: walking completely normally without aids, easily able to enter or exit their vehicle) parks in a Van-Only.


Oh yeah, my mom has a placard because of a mobility issue and makes sure never to park in the van accessible spaces if possible. If we can, when there's another driver we will drop her off at the door instead though, and not park in the accessible spots at all-- because right now even the walk from the accessible parking spaces to the door can be difficult for her. It's also more difficult for her to get back in the car in the flat parking lot vs. if we can pick her up at a higher curb which helps gives her a boost when getting in.


----------



## KodyK

Thanks, Chicagocanine and some of you others for discussing the realities of invisible disability. People automatically assume all "real" disabilities are visible or noticeable, and they are not. 

I had a stranger scream at me in Time Square for using my cane (pre-dog) because I looked at a (HUGE) sign. He cursed me out and told me I was a liar.

I am told regularly that I don't "look blind."

I've been harassed, threatened, cursed at, etc many times - and I've been disabled since birth.

It's important to keep in mind that disabilities fall on many different spectrums, and unless you're disabled yourself, you might not have a full grasp of the realities of having a disability that people don't always notice or believe.

I know there have been all these stories about fake service dogs and people getting fake handicap parking signs - obviously, that stuff does happen in real life, but frankly? I think a lot of it is moral panic stirred up by the media over a few incidents. I don't think it happens as often as some believe. And while people want to claim highlighting these stories is to help point out the injustices it causes for disabled people, in reality, highlighting these events just makes things a million times harder for real disabled people who are then forced to "prove" their disability regularly and fight off unfair assumptions and suspicions.


----------



## ILGHAUS

> I know there have been all these stories about fake service dogs and people getting fake handicap parking signs - obviously, that stuff does happen in real life, but frankly? I think a lot of it is moral panic stirred up by the media over a few incidents. I don't think it happens as often as some believe. And while people want to claim highlighting these stories is to help point out the injustices it causes for disabled people, in reality, highlighting these events just makes things a million times harder for real disabled people who are then forced to "prove" their disability regularly and fight off unfair assumptions and suspicions.


It seems that my opinion is vastly different than yours. There are many of us who believe that these incidents are more than a few and that these same incidents do cause problems for people with disabilities.


----------



## KodyK

I"m not saying it doesn't cause problems for people like me, who really do have service dogs, but i'm saying that I've faced much more of a problem since reports started coming out because there's more suspicion and accusation. I'm worried that the more it gets covered, the more likely it is there will be harsher regulations on service dog users, which could lead to a lot of issues for real disabled people. (Particularly for owner-trainers, which I'm not, but I support a person's right to train their own service dog.)

I guess my attitude is that I"d rather a few jerks slip through the cracks of the system than to see tighter regulations make life more difficult for those of us who actually need service dogs.

That said, if it leads to more business learning their actual existing rights and how to legally approach service dog handlers, I'm in favor of it. Sadly, I have a feeling it won't lead to education but instead to stricter laws. I'm all for educating business owners, though. I think if more businesses understood thier rights and were trained for how to legally deal with service dogs, this would help a lot. Sadly, many employers don't seem to take the time to educate employees on this issue. At least in my personal experience.


----------



## Mrs.K

I have a friend with a Lab. He has to walk on a cane because of his knee. He is still in the military, just PCS'ed. He is not disabled yet. I am sure he's getting a medical discharge out. He's trained his Lab as a Service Dog. Even went to a professional trainer for that and the dog underwent a test for Service Dogs and passed. 
Again, he's not disabled yet, he is taking his dog out as Service Dogs and currently he has troubles walking. I can understand why he is doing it and that he needs the assistance because right now he is very wobbly on his leg and he's made sure to take the right steps for his dog. 

Now... what do you say about a case like that?


----------



## ILGHAUS

> ... the dog underwent a test for Service Dogs and passed.


There is no official "test" for Service Dogs. Any evaluation the trainer gave the dog was either a test the trainer designed himself or a test put together by someone else.




> ... he is taking his dog out as Service Dogs ...


If he is taking the dog places where pet dogs are not allowed then he is not in compliance with Fed. or State laws.




> Now... what do you say about a case like that?


If he is not disabled then no matter how well his dog is trained, the dog is not a Service Dog.


----------



## Mrs.K

It is a test that was designed for Service Dogs that are trained for Veterans. I know he went to a group somewhere in Syracuse, I am not sure if it is the same group that GSDElsa has talked about one or two years ago. 

He might not be on disability yet, but this dog is truly helping him to get around, so I'm not judging him. He is not taking him to Grocery stores or the PX. He knows better than that but he will call him his Service Dog and take him in to the public as his Service Dog and this dog is truly providing a Service to him. Without him, he would be much more limited in what he does.


----------



## ILGHAUS

> He might not be on disability yet, but this dog is truly helping him to get around, so I'm not judging him.


I am not "judging" him either but only giving my opinion based on the information that you gave and how that info goes along with Regs. and Statutes.


And you did present a question "what do you say about a case like that?"


----------



## Mrs.K

Oh, not disagreeing with you at all. Legally, he's not a true Service Dog, yet. 

If he does or does not take him into places he shouldn't take him, I can't say with certainty.


----------



## KodyK

Why do you say he's not disabled? What is your deciding factor on this? If he uses a cane, my automatic inclination would be that yes, he is disabled. (Being on disability doesn't always serve as the deciding factor. Not everyone with a disability applies for it.) I'm just a little confused as to why you'd say he has a mobility issue and uses a cane, but isn't disabled?


----------



## Mrs.K

Because legally he is not disabled. Using a cane, does not automatically make you legally disabled. The dog is not an official service dog. He has no special parking rights. So technically he is not disabled.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Two things you are combating. 

One the current meme in our culture which is very defensive towards people gaining any sort of benefits from "the government" whether it be money or what is viewed as preferential treatment such as being able to bring your dog into a movie theater. It's part of human nature to worry about who is getting something 'unfairly' and current conditions seem to be worsening it. IMO it's probably going to get worse before it gets better. 

Second, in blue, the fact is for *most* businesses the amount of money made from customers with disabilities often does not offset the cost of making a building accessible or dealing with or training about regulations or with situations such as customers who think a service dog shouldn't be in the store or who are allergic to dogs (I have a friend with this problem). I was chatting with a business owner who had to install a special handicap accessible water fountain. He was so frustrated because hardly anyone used the regular one and the handicap fountain would be at best used once or twice a year if that. Often business owners are stuck in a no win situation and from a bottom line perspective that's quite a burden on the business owner.

It's a difficult situation, I wish it was not, but comes part and parcel with our socio-economic motives.



KodyK said:


> I"m not saying it doesn't cause problems for people like me, who really do have service dogs, but i'm saying that I've faced much more of a problem since reports started coming out because there's more suspicion and accusation. I'm worried that the more it gets covered, the more likely it is there will be harsher regulations on service dog users, which could lead to a lot of issues for real disabled people. (Particularly for owner-trainers, which I'm not, but I support a person's right to train their own service dog.)
> 
> I guess my attitude is that I"d rather a few jerks slip through the cracks of the system than to see tighter regulations make life more difficult for those of us who actually need service dogs.
> 
> That said, if it leads to more business learning their actual existing rights and how to legally approach service dog handlers, I'm in favor of it. Sadly, I have a feeling it won't lead to education but instead to stricter laws. I'm all for educating business owners, though. I think if more businesses understood thier rights and were trained for how to legally deal with service dogs, this would help a lot. *Sadly, many employers don't seem to take the time to educate employees on this issue*. At least in my personal experience.


----------



## Oisin's Aoire

That is a valid point. I have a friend who owns a pizza store ( family owned for generations) . Before he could do any type of renovation that needed a permit ( which is pretty much everything including painting the interior and replacing a faded and torn awning) he had to bring the buiding up to ADA code. He was too close to the road for a ramp , he had to install a lift and then also do structural changes inside ( it was an old 3 story home) .

It cost him almost 50K that he did not have . The business had been doing terrible for years and he wanted a minor facelift for it as it was starting to look derelict and he was not ready to throw in the towel.

He went for it..and to this day nobody has used the lift. There is a pizza place every 2 blocks here( including the famed Pizzaland from the opening Sopranos credits) , most are ground level glass store front.

It was a hardship on an old small struggling business that was surrounded by modern options anyway , within blocks.

I know a lot of ADA laws only apply to businesses of a certain size or up , but apparently this zoning law stood even for a place with 3 related employees ...I think this is one of those rare cases where it was really unfair to the business owner.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yup. 

At macro level we talk about doing the right thing for people with disabilities, we pass regs and rules to help obtain that goal but...*no one* wants to pay for it.

IMO many problems probably have simpler solutions such as the water fountain, why not offer bottled water and cups depending on the person's need? A small fridge and a sign directing where they can get water if they are thirsty. A lot less expensive but often there is not a lot of flexibility with the regs.

Have a phone number posted on street sign in front of the store with a number to call so a store employee can come out to assist a disabled person access the store, if they normally don't get a lot of patrons that are disabled. 

Dogs, why not have everyone pass standardized certification tests who wants to take their dogs to more public areas? Disabled or not with maybe the exception those with service dogs may need some more access. This would accomplish a couple of things, A**) people would feel less defensive about SDs in public because if they want they can get persmissions too. B) If it's more common place and more people bring their dogs to businesses while purchasing goods/items it will incentivize businesses to be more 'open' door to SDs as well. Win-win. Seems to work well for a lot of European countries.

But we get so hung up and not letting the 'other guy get away' with something we think they shouldn't that we'd rather cut our noses off to spite our faces with rules, regs and restrictions.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

As luck would have it I met my first 'faker' today. I was training Smitty for the CGC in petsmart and a lady who was there demo'ing products stopped to talk. She has GSDs too. She told my how she took her dog through the GA Aquarium last week (it's all indoors). I asked her how did she get her dog in, did you have a Service Dog vest on her. She said no vest, "I just walked in confidently and she is well trained and we went through the whole aquarium". I was ready to let her have it if she had admitted to using a vest. Apparently the staff didn't want to question her and she did her thing.


----------

