Service Dogs in Training...?

[Greydusk]

Interesting thread!

From the business side, when I see someone walk in to the restaurant where I work with their dog, I'd say 90% aren't service dogs. Some have vests, some don't, most are straining on their leash or shaking in the purse that they're confined. I don't ever ask if it's a service animal, nobody does, there's no real point. The answer will always be yes even though it's clearly not, so what's the point? It's kind of a joke really, like anyone is going to take the time and money to take someone to court for that? We know that they're impersonating a service dog, but we can't do much about it unless the dog starts acting up in which case we can ask them to put their dog back into their car.

[Mrs.K]

Originally Posted by Greydusk

Interesting thread!

From the business side, when I see someone walk in to the restaurant where I work with their dog, I'd say 90% aren't service dogs. Some have vests, some don't, most are straining on their leash or shaking in the purse that they're confined. I don't ever ask if it's a service animal, nobody does, there's no real point. The answer will always be yes even though it's clearly not, so what's the point? It's kind of a joke really, like anyone is going to take the time and money to take someone to court for that? We know that they're impersonating a service dog, but we can't do much about it unless the dog starts acting up in which case we can ask them to put their dog back into their car.

What if one of those dogs bites the staff or a visitor?

Than it's another "so called" service dog in the news that bit somebody.

[martemchik]

Tags wouldn't work because they would be way too easy to replicate, and is every business owner going to look up the ID number on the tag in order to make sure that its valid. The only time you would get in trouble for it is if a police officer decided to ask, and even then what reason would they have for asking?

[Lin]

It most definitely is worth it to ask if its a service dog. If they say yes, then you can ask what type of service dog it is and for 2 service tasks that the dog performs to mitigate the handlers disability. If they are unable to answer this, you can deny them access. If they try to sue you (which is not going to happen if they are faking) you did nothing wrong. If it goes to court, they will have to prove to the judge that they are disabled and legally disabled as well as their dogs training as a service dog such as with detailed logs as well as performing service tasks on command for the judge. This is what I mean when I say that knowing the laws protects yourself. Asking these simple questions can tell you if the person is faking. And if they arent, answering these simple questions is of no bother to the handler. But being followed around a store, shot dirty looks, given poor service because employees were burnt by a faking dog ARE a bother.

I've mentioned it before, but I've been on both sides of this issue. I've been able to determine someone was faking with claimed service dogs when I was the manager of a building.

A civil right is one that protects freedom such as from discrimination. Driving is not a civil right. Transportation in the form of walking would be a civil right. Operating a piece of machinery such as a car or semi trailer is a privilege. So carrying a drivers license cannot be compared to carrying a service dog ID. Entering a public place is a right, not a privilege.

The ADA as a civil rights law prevents discrimination due to disability. To qualify under the ADA, you must be substantially limited in one or more "major life functions." These include "functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working." When it comes to public access for SDs, the access is NOT on the dog. The access is on the part of the disabled person. If the dog is not accompanied by the disabled person, they may not enter anywhere pets are not allowed. This is for the same reason you cannot deny admittance to someone in a wheelchair. It would be discrimination on the part of being disabled.

A drivers license is not required to perform major life functions. You can walk, take a bus, be driven around by someone else and so forth. Not having a drivers license does not disrupt a deaf person's ability to care for themself. However if you're deaf, a hearing dog could mean life or death in the instance of a fire alarm. A person assisting the deaf individual could do the job, and a person carrying around a paralyzed person could do the job. But then they are dependent on others to complete major life activities. Service dogs and adaptive equipment assist in these major life activities. That is why the ADA protects the individual's right to use a service animal, as well as their right to not be denied housing or entrance due to a wheelchair. A wheelchair can cause damage to carpet, but a landlord cannot deny a wheelchair user housing. If damage to the carpet happened, it would be the responsibility of the person who caused it regardless of if it was due to a SD, wheelchair, or non disabled individual spilling something.

So if its ok to require identification to protect civil rights and we require the disabled to carry identification on their service dog or wheelchair, do we force the homosexual to carry identification as well? Protection of sexual orientation from discrimination is a civil right.

Wait, I've got it. There's a solution for those issues of not carrying your certification or ID with you. We can start tattooing the disabled forearms, then they will always have it with them!

[ILGHAUS]

Lin and I have been trying to get a few basic concepts across to help people understand. Yes, I know it is hard to get your minds around and does take a lot of research and thought. Always helps to have someone guide you through the maze.

ADA is a Civil Rights Law.

Service Dogs have no rights under the ADA or the Dept. of Justice.

All rights of Public Access belong to the disabled handler and none to the dog.

A Service dog is only one with its disabled handler or its trainer.
Disabled Handler + Dog trained to mitigate disability of owner handler = Service Dog
Handler (spouse or friend of Disabled Handler) + Dog trained to mitigate disability of owner handler does not = Service Dog

Per some laws a SD is not an animal/pet but a piece of medical equipment. Some such as following local or state vac. requirements etc. a SD is then an animal/pet. Different circumstances are covered by different laws.

Drivers Licenses are not under Civil Law - they are under criminal law (state statutes). Drive without one and you can end up in jail. You will not be arrested for breaking a Civil Law. (Here is where people have examples where people were arrested but no they were not arrested for breaking a civil law. They were arrested for breaking an additional law such as trespassing or in violation of a court order.) Some states by their statutes allow the forfeiture of a DL when breaking another law, civil or state.

[Mrs.K]

Than take glasses for an instance.

Every single person has to take an eye sight test and if you don't pass, you have to get your eyes checked before you can take your drivers license test and it will be put into your drivers license that you have to wear them.

Isn't that discriminating against people who wear glasses? That you are labeled as a person that has an eye sight problem and might even have to take out a contact to proof that s/he is wearing them?

I can't understand your kind of logic because I don't look at it as a discrimination, I look at it as protection of your rights.

And what difference does a certain color make? If you chose to put "Service Dog" on your dogs vest or backpack, it labels you as a disabled person of some kind. So what difference does a certain color make?

[Lin]

Originally Posted by Mrs.K

I can't understand your kind of logic because I don't look at it as a discrimination, I look at it as protection of your rights.

Well thats part of the problem, because the law looks at it as discrimination so you need to be able to understand that to understand the law.

And again, a drivers license is not a civil right. So you can't compare a drivers license to a civil right. You have to jump through hoops to get privileges. You need to pass an eye test, you need to pass the written test. But you do not need to pass a test to be allowed to shop at your local grocery store. To be forced to do so is impinging on your civil rights.

And what difference does a certain color make? If you chose to put "Service Dog" on your dogs vest or backpack, it labels you as a disabled person of some kind. So what difference does a certain color make?

Because its taking rights away. I should be free to choose what color car I want, what color crutch I use, or what color I think looks best on my dog for a harness or saddle bags. From now on should we require that the only color purse a woman is allowed to use is brown? I do not carry a purse, my dogs saddlebags are my purse. If I am required to use a specific color saddlebags to be allowed to shop, its no different than for you to be required to use a specific color purse if you want to shop. But I don't think everyone is going to band together and vote that from now on black purses aren't allowed in public places.

[chudsosoft]

What you are failing to grasp is that going to the store, walking down the street, and eating at a restaurant are rights. Driving a car is not. A car is a piece of heavy machinery. You are under no obligation to carry identification with you.

Occasions when the law REQUIRES you to present ID:

Drive a car (a piece of deadly heavy machinery)
Enter a bar or other age-restricted area
Purchase alcohol or other age-restricted product
Enter an airport or other secure area

ID Optional:

Crutches
Wheelchairs
Wearing glasses
Portable oxygen concentrators
Service animals

As it is and AS IT SHOULD BE.

[Mrs.K]

And that is the problem. The Service Dog would actually be protected and nobody could impersonate it anymore.

If you are disabled and drive a car you have to have a disability tag in your window in order to part in the disability spot.
So you are pretty much labeled too...

Things would be a lot easier if everybody wouldn't scream discrimination at ever tiny little thing.

Seriously. At one point you scream at those who impersonate service dogs but on the other hand you are not trying to make it any harder for them to actually claim their pets as service dogs.

[wildo]

Originally Posted by chudsosoft

What you are failing to grasp is that going to the store, walking down the street, and eating at a restaurant are rights. Driving a car is not. A car is a piece of heavy machinery. You are under no obligation to carry identification with you.

I wasn't trying to start some big heated controversy (I think were well past that- even though the thread has stayed pretty civil). I thought the driver's license thing was a good analogy, that is- something that is follows a similar thought pattern but is not physically the same.

Even so, I don't understand your logic in the quote above. Apparently, according to the ADA law, a service animal is just as much a piece of equipment as is an oxygen tank, dialysis machine, or yes- a car. Equipment is equipment. You can't have it both ways. Either it's an animal with potentially unpredictable behavior, or it is a piece of equipment. There are many areas in life where equipment must be licensed.

I understand the whole "discrimination" claim. I get it. I just am not sure I agree with it, logically speaking- that is. Then again, I only know as much about it as what has been discussed on this board.

I know that if I was writing the system as a computer program, I'd define a base class called "equipment," with two derived classes called "car" and "service animal." Logically speaking, equipment is equipment- there is no middle ground there.

...errr- point being- I don't think it is necessarily discrimination to require equipment (of any kind) to be registered.