Question about Service Dogs

[G00fyDad]

lol. I was in the middle of pulling my documentation sources out from School Board packets and stopped to make dinner. ooops.

Maybe if it is stated twice it will stick?

Maybe.

 

[Gabe1]

There is actually a piece on CBS news this evening at 10pm in Chicago about fake service dogs.

My fear is this piece will be a rating grabber, much like the one sided point of view of DAS was covered at Disney. Or how blown out of proportion the media blew the incredibly small percentage of disabled people who rented themselves out as tour guides with GAC privileges. 5 minute media pieces often lack the full story and often do more harm than good. Oy.

 

[DJMoore2011]

Irritated much?

Yes since I have to fight things like this almost daily for my Daughter who is Special Needs, but because she does not "look it", I get told I am lying or trying to milk the system. So yep it does irritate me that people abuse the system ment to help her live a life as independently as possible. That people assume that any dog is just a pet, that when my Daughter is having a sensory overload she is just a brat that is not getting her way.

And the little boy I am talking about is my nephew.

So yes.

 

[G00fyDad]

Yes since I have to fight things like this almost daily for my Daughter who is Special Needs, but because she does not "look it", I get told I am lying or trying to milk the system. So yep it does irritate me that people abuse the system ment to help her live a life as independently as possible. That people assume that any dog is just a pet, that when my Daughter is having a sensory overload she is just a brat that is not getting her way.

And the little boy I am talking about is my nephew.

So yes.

Keep in mind that you are talking to a select group of people here that have, or know someone close that have children with autism, or another sensory disorder. Try to remain calm. Many people in the world are self-absorbed idiots and do not have the manners it takes to function effectively in the world. Accept that you will always face this sort of ridicule because the issues are not as apparent as a wheelchair. Accept that no matter what you do some people are going to act like that. You getting bent doesn't help things at all. If someone gets irritated at you for "faking" the issue then that is more about them than you.

 

[luv]

Keep in mind that you are talking to a select group of people here that have, or know someone close that have children with autism, or another sensory disorder. Try to remain calm. Many people in the world are self-absorbed idiots and do not have the manners it takes to function effectively in the world. Accept that you will always face this sort of ridicule because the issues are not as apparent as a wheelchair. Accept that no matter what you do some people are going to act like that. You getting bent doesn't help things at all. If someone gets irritated at you for "faking" the issue then that is more about them than you.

"Out of shape"!!!! You need the "out of shape" there. Without the "out of shape", it is an entirely different statement, lol. ...and the "faking" part, also...whole new meaning.

(I know you didn't know, lol.)

 

[Gabe1]

I don't think anyone is complaining about Service Animals for a variety of conditions. I don't even object to someone having a pet trained - by someone who has the expertise to do so, and work with the owner. This ensures that the animal does what it is supposed to do, and can react appropriately. The animals are also trained to interact safely and unobtrusively with the general population, while the owner is instructed in how to deal with the animal in public, and how to treat it as a true service animal, rather than just a pet that goes everywhere with them.

A PK teacher at my children's elementary school trained service dogs, and even the youngest child learned how to interact when the puppy was "on-duty." I felt very fortunate that my children had this learning opportunity.

Part of the problem is there isn't a standardized system for the training of service dogs or police dogs, let alone pets and then certifying trainers as having expertise. Some trainers motivate with food, some with sounds others with verbal commands others with gestures.

Owning a Pet/Dog business for almost 25 years I have seen some pretty out there dog trainers and some wonderful ones, I won't even get started on the the expertise that some show handlers employ. So the likelihood of ever certifying a handler, trainer or dog to a national standard is going to be tough. Too many types of service dogs and there are the different methods that work with one breed and don't with another. I've yet to see a dog trainer that didn't consider themselves to have expertise. I have one in my town that shouts "OUT" instead of No because "OUT" is in her theory sounds like Momma dogs sound when correcting her puppies. The ones that speak German to their Pups are funny. Good for police sure, but come'on, for a pet?

It is going to be just like GAC/DAS, there is going to be a small percentage of guests that mess with a very good system. And we are not going to be able to pick out the real from the fake dogs or guests with dogs with real or fake disability issues. Kinda breaks my heart, service dogs are amazing.

 

[G00fyDad]

Part of the problem is there isn't a standardized system for the training of service dogs or police dogs, let alone pets. Let alone certifying trainers as having expertise. Some trainers motivate with food, some with sounds others with verbal commands others with gestures.

Owning a Pet/Dog business for almost 25 years I have seen some pretty out there dog trainers and some wonderful ones, I won't even get started on the the expertise that some show handlers employ. So the likelihood of ever certifying a handler, trainer or dog to a national standard is going to be tough. Too many types of service dogs and there are the different methods that work with one breed and don't with another. I've yet to see a dog trainer that didn't consider themselves to have expertise. I have one in my town that shouts "OUT" instead of No because "OUT" is in her theory sounds like Momma dogs sound when correcting her puppies. The ones that speak German to their Pups are funny. Good for police sure, but come'on, for a pet?

It is going to be just like GAC/DAS, there is going to be a small percentage of guests that mess with a very good system. And we are not going to be able to pick out the real from the fake dogs or guests with dogs with real or fake disability issues. Kinda breaks my heart, service dogs are amazing.

For this reason alone I feel that proving a disability would be a very good idea. I am not talking about going to each ride operator, or the front gate personnel to declare the reasons for the service animal. What I am suggesting is that the person requiring the needs of a service animal should show the resort ( or some other centralized upper management CM) the reason(s) why they need the service animal. That CM would then give a special "permit" to have the service animal anywhere on property without question by any other CM. Then, once it is known that all service animals are routinely vetted then the complaints by others, and the "fakers" will stop.

I know that this idea will upset some, maybe most, but it is what it has come to when too many people abuse the legitimate system.

 

[pluto77]

\
As for the definition of a service animal.....


They are allowed. But as you said, people have abused this and it gets out of control. I do feel that we as a society have become to pansied about this sort of thing. If you have a disability then you should have to prove that disability if it is not obvious (blind, deaf, wheelchair, etc...)

huh? I'm confused. I'm really not commenting just to disagree, but you quoted from ada.gov and it clearly says

"The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person’s disability. Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA."

Yet you say that "emotional support dogs" are allowed based on the quote. I'm confused about how you came to that conclusion.

From everything I read, they have special considerations when it comes to housing that doesn't allow pets and for airline travel, but they don't have the same rights as service animals in other businesses.

Now there is a difference between an emotional support dog and a psychiatric service dog. I wonder if this is where some people are getting confused. Psychiatric service dogs have the same type of training as other service dogs and are trained for specifics tasks to help the patient.

So, to me, that makes it sound like that jaklgreen is correct in what you said. That business do have the right to deny access to "emotional support dogs".

Y
Source??? Where does the Dept of Justice state that? Where are the statistics from that most animals are not trained for emotional support? Source please. Where does it state that emotional disabilities are exempt and businesses can turn those dogs away? Source?

Aside from the ada.gov website, there are several articles that come up on google that explain the differences between emotional support animals, which generally aren't trained to perform specific tasks, and service dogs (which can be for psychiatric issues as well). There are a lot of emotional support animals out there that don't have the same type of training as service dogs and they are usually classified as being "therapeutic" and don't have the same rights as "service dogs," in regular businesses, but they do have other special considerations.

Here's an article from 2011, which is when they clarified the new meaning of a service dog:

http://www.workinglikedogs.com/2011...stance-dogs-to-become-stricter-march-15-2011/

And here's a more recent one that explains the true benefits of emotional support animals, but that they are, indeed, not considered service animals.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/2/prweb10481392.htm

I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes here. And I am a pet lover, and all for service animals, but I'm just wondering if people are getting confused between the terms "emotional support dogs" and "psychiatric service dogs" because there is a difference.

Edit: If I'm wrong, and there's something I'm not getting, feel free to let me know.

 

[G00fyDad]

huh? I'm confused. I'm really not commenting just to disagree, but you quoted from ada.gov and it clearly says

"The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person’s disability. Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA."

Yet you say that "emotional support dogs" are allowed based on the quote. I'm confused about how you came to that conclusion.

From everything I read, they have special considerations when it comes to housing that doesn't allow pets and for airline travel, but they don't have the same rights as service animals in other businesses.

Now there is a difference between an emotional support dog and a psychiatric service dog. I wonder if this is where some people are getting confused. Psychiatric service dogs have the same type of training as other service dogs and are trained for specifics tasks to help the patient.

So, to me, that makes it sound like that jaklgreen is correct in what you said. That business do have the right to deny access to "emotional support dogs".



Aside from the ada.gov website, there are several articles that come up on google that explain the differences between emotional support animals, which generally aren't trained to perform specific tasks, and service dogs (which can be for psychiatric issues as well). There are a lot of emotional support animals out there that don't have the same type of training as service dogs and they are usually classified as being "therapeutic" and don't have the same rights as "service dogs," in regular businesses, but they do have other special considerations.

Here's an article from 2011, which is when they clarified the new meaning of a service dog:

http://www.workinglikedogs.com/2011...stance-dogs-to-become-stricter-march-15-2011/

And here's a more recent one that explains the true benefits of emotional support animals, but that they are, indeed, not considered service animals.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/2/prweb10481392.htm

I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes here. And I am a pet lover, and all for service animals, but I'm just wondering if people are getting confused between the terms "emotional support dogs" and "psychiatric service dogs" because there is a difference.

Edit: If I'm wrong, and there's something I'm not getting, feel free to let me know.

"calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack" Those animals with training to calm a child with anxiety issues are covered. PTSD is not just a war veteran disorder. And this can be expanded to include children with Autism.

 

[pluto77]

"calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack" Those animals with training to calm a child with anxiety issues are covered. PTSD is not just a war veteran disorder. And this can be expanded to include children with Autism.

I understand that. I'm just saying that that animal wouldn't be classified as an emotional support animal then. It would probably be classified as a psychiatric service dog because a true service dog is specially trained to be in public, and to handle people with PTSD. I believe I read that in one of the articles I went through. Emotional support animals do not have a be as extensively trained, and they are the ones that can be unstable in public setting, as people are commenting about.

And sorry, I should clarify that I'm not directly responding to the OP as I don't know his situation and if the dog is an emotional support animal or a psychiatric service dog. I was just commenting in general.

 

[Gabe1]

For this reason alone I feel that proving a disability would be a very good idea. I am not talking about going to each ride operator, or the front gate personnel to declare the reasons for the service animal. What I am suggesting is that the person requiring the needs of a service animal should show the resort ( or some other centralized upper management CM) the reason(s) why they need the service animal. That CM would then give a special "permit" to have the service animal anywhere on property without question by any other CM. Then, once it is known that all service animals are routinely vetted then the complaints by others, and the "fakers" will stop.

I know that this idea will upset some, maybe most, but it is what it has come to when too many people abuse the legitimate system.

I understand what you are saying but the language of the law specifically prohibits requiring owners to carry proof in order to be serviced. It is very clear that they can ask what the dog does but you don't have to prove or document any of it by law. And they best be very careful to ask about the dogs function and not lend questions to what is the persons disability.

 

[G00fyDad]

I understand what you are saying but the language of the law specifically prohibits requiring owners to carry proof in order to be serviced. It is very clear that they can ask what the dog does but you don't have to prove or document any of it by law. And they best be very careful to ask about the dogs function and not lend questions to what is the persons disability.

I know, but I think that the law needs to change slightly. I am all for protecting the rights and privacy of individuals, but some shmucks ruin that for everyone.

 

[Gabe1]

huh? I'm confused. I'm really not commenting just to disagree, but you quoted from ada.gov and it clearly says

"The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person’s disability. Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA."

Yet you say that "emotional support dogs" are allowed based on the quote. I'm confused about how you came to that conclusion.

From everything I read, they have special considerations when it comes to housing that doesn't allow pets and for airline travel, but they don't have the same rights as service animals in other businesses.

Now there is a difference between an emotional support dog and a psychiatric service dog. I wonder if this is where some people are getting confused. Psychiatric service dogs have the same type of training as other service dogs and are trained for specifics tasks to help the patient.

So, to me, that makes it sound like that jaklgreen is correct in what you said. That business do have the right to deny access to "emotional support dogs".



Aside from the ada.gov website, there are several articles that come up on google that explain the differences between emotional support animals, which generally aren't trained to perform specific tasks, and service dogs (which can be for psychiatric issues as well). There are a lot of emotional support animals out there that don't have the same type of training as service dogs and they are usually classified as being "therapeutic" and don't have the same rights as "service dogs," in regular businesses, but they do have other special considerations.

Here's an article from 2011, which is when they clarified the new meaning of a service dog:

http://www.workinglikedogs.com/2011...stance-dogs-to-become-stricter-march-15-2011/

And here's a more recent one that explains the true benefits of emotional support animals, but that they are, indeed, not considered service animals.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/2/prweb10481392.htm

I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes here. And I am a pet lover, and all for service animals, but I'm just wondering if people are getting confused between the terms "emotional support dogs" and "psychiatric service dogs" because there is a difference.

Edit: If I'm wrong, and there's something I'm not getting, feel free to let me know.

Yep, they are trying to differentiate between emotional disorders and mental illness. It isn't going to work.
The law still remains that you cannot ask for proof of service dog status or ask the owner for the dog to put on a show and then the owner of the establishment is the decider if the Pup passes or not? Really? I can't see Disney ever going down that road, the burden of proof would be on Disney to prove it isn't necessary or a real service dog if the owner took them to court.

The example I gave previously of the emotional support service dog for the autistic student does nothing but follow the child around. But it is like night and day with the dog that was trained specifically for children with autism. I wouldn't go down that legal road to try and have the dog removed.

That is worded so awkwardly, combined with the inability by law to ask for proof, this will only add confusion verse clarity.

 

[Gabe1]

I know, but I think that the law needs to change slightly. I am all for protecting the rights and privacy of individuals, but some shmucks ruin that for everyone.

But when you change the laws for one you change the laws for all with ADA by precedent. The only way this is going to work is if every disabled person has to have a red flag ID card for their disability and what accommodations they need, including but not limited to a service dog. I cannot imagine any legislator going down that road because their are both republicans and democrats that have disabilities themselves that wouldn't want to prove and disclose their personal health issues or have children's issues discussed to be serviced by a business. You would single out citizens with disabilities to relinquish their health privacy rights. Ugly mess there. I'm sure that is why they did not delete the portion of the law that says you cannot ask for proof because that puts an end to disability health privacy.

No good deed goes unpunished, again.

 

[pluto77]

Yep, they are trying to differentiate between emotional disorders and mental illness. It isn't going to work.
The law still remains that you cannot ask for proof of service dog status or ask the owner for the dog to put on a show and then the owner of the establishment is the decider if the Pup passes or not? Really? I can't see Disney ever going down that road, the burden of proof would be on Disney to prove it isn't necessary or a real service dog if the owner took them to court.

The example I gave previously of the emotional support service dog for the autistic student does nothing but follow the child around. But it is like night and day with the dog that was trained specifically for children with autism. I wouldn't go down that legal road to try and have the dog removed.

That is worded so awkwardly, combined with the inability by law to ask for proof, this will only add confusion verse clarity.

Oh okay, I understand now what you were saying with businesses not being able to turn people away with emotional support dogs then. I'm still glad I looked it up though, I hope I didn't offend you. I wasn't posting just to prove a point, I was generally curious, and maybe someone else who is reading this thread will learn something about all this. That does make things kind of confusing and harder for the people who really truly need the service the dog provides (including your autistic student) in terms of people judging and scrutinizing them.

 

[G00fyDad]

But when you change the laws for one you change the laws for all with ADA by precedent. The only way this is going to work is if every disabled person has to have a red flag ID card for their disability and what accommodations they need, including but not limited to a service dog. I cannot imagine any legislator going down that road because their are both republicans and democrats that have disabilities themselves that wouldn't want to prove and disclose their personal health issues or have children's issues discussed to be serviced by a business. You would single out citizens with disabilities to relinquish their health privacy rights. Ugly mess there. I'm sure that is why they did not delete the portion of the law that says you cannot ask for proof because that puts an end to disability health privacy.

No good deed goes unpunished, again.

I understand your point. I agree. There is no good solution to this issue.

 

[pluto77]

But when you change the laws for one you change the laws for all with ADA by precedent. The only way this is going to work is if every disabled person has to have a red flag ID card for their disability and what accommodations they need, including but not limited to a service dog. I cannot imagine any legislator going down that road because their are both republicans and democrats that have disabilities themselves that wouldn't want to prove and disclose their personal health issues or have children's issues discussed to be serviced by a business. You would single out citizens with disabilities to relinquish their health privacy rights. Ugly mess there. I'm sure that is why they did not delete the portion of the law that says you cannot ask for proof because that puts an end to disability health privacy.

No good deed goes unpunished, again.

I totally understand your point about privacy, and I am going into healthcare and understand the importance of keeping medical information private. But let's be honest. If someone has an animal (usually a dog) inside a business that is normally no pets allowed people are going to know that the person has a disability (either that or they are breaking the rules, but let's assume they aren't). It seems like their could just be something that they could do to signify that it is truly a service animal, rather it be a card the person has or something on the animal itself (like on it's vest). Nobody has to know what they have, just that the dog is legally a service animal and is allowed to go anywhere the owner goes.

 

[G00fyDad]

I totally understand your point about privacy, and I am going into healthcare and understand the importance of keeping medical information private. But let's be honest. If someone has an animal (usually a dog) inside a business that is normally no pets allowed people are going to know that the person has a disability (either that or they are breaking the rules, but let's assume they aren't). It seems like their could just be something that they could do to signify that it is truly a service animal, rather it be a card the person has or something on the animal itself (like on it's vest). Nobody has to know what they have, just that the dog is legally a service animal and is allowed to go anywhere the owner goes.

That stuff can be faked. Hence the issue we have been discussing. D-bags that ruin things like this for those with valid reasons.

 

[Hot Lava]

well socialized service dog should do fairly okay at an amusement park, so I don't think it's fair to tell people they shouldn't enjoy Disney if they can't do so without a service dog.

This assumes training takes place. Just like with handicap parking or the GAC, disgusting people are always trying to work the system. So people slap a vest, badge or whatever on their pet and call it a service dog.

There should be requirements to prove your dog is trained by some accredited organization. Or your service dog should require a "license" from the state (just like the placard you need for your car). Human morons cheating the system are a physical threat to others. People bringing their pets wherever (and I have been seeing this a lot more in malls) and calling them service animals is a recipe for disaster. Someone at some point is going to get hurt. It will most likely involve a child being bitten, and an idiot owner yelling and insisting, " My dog is harmless, my dog is friendly"!

And yeah, these morons also never take into account how dragging the dog everywhere affects the dog. But hey! Who cares about anything other than what they want?

 

[Goofyernmost]

For this reason alone I feel that proving a disability would be a very good idea. I am not talking about going to each ride operator, or the front gate personnel to declare the reasons for the service animal. What I am suggesting is that the person requiring the needs of a service animal should show the resort ( or some other centralized upper management CM) the reason(s) why they need the service animal. That CM would then give a special "permit" to have the service animal anywhere on property without question by any other CM. Then, once it is known that all service animals are routinely vetted then the complaints by others, and the "fakers" will stop.

I know that this idea will upset some, maybe most, but it is what it has come to when too many people abuse the legitimate system.

Way, way too logical! For some reason ADA thinks that it is less humiliating to be questioned mentally by everybody they come in contact with, then one central defining situation that would make the rest of the day an anxiety and question free breeze. Is it any wonder why today's youth thinks that adults are idiots? It's because many of them are!