Why not a SD that is also a visiting TD?

[Whiteshepherds]

Originally Posted by ILGHAUS

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

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

[ILGHAUS]

Originally Posted by SFGSSD

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

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


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

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

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

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

[ILGHAUS]

Originally Posted by SFGSSD

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

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

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

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

[SFGSSD]

Originally Posted by ILGHAUS

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

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

[Xeph]

I find your argument to be incredibly weak, Terry.

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

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

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

[SFGSSD]

Originally Posted by ILGHAUS

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

I rest my case.

[martemchik]

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

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

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

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

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

[SFGSSD]

Originally Posted by martemchik

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

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

[JakodaCD OA]

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

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

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

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

Is it you?

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

[Mrs.K]

Originally Posted by msvette2u

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

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

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

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

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

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