Discussion on Owner Trainers

[SFGSSD]

Originally Posted by Lauri & The Gang

What does that thread have to do with this conversation??

This post: I am on the fence with this policy in general. I do not retain ownership of the dogs that are certified through SFGSSD. Although I do not retain ownership of the dog I do have the right to not recertify any dog that no longer meets acceptable tolerances in accordance with the guidelines of this company. We do check up on our clients quarterly throughout the year and re-test for certification on an annual basis. We also encourage our clients to contact us immediately if any performance issues surface so we can address and correct them in a timely manner. If the client chooses to not heed our advice and the dog fails recertification as a result, it is the client’s responsibility to bring the dog to acceptable levels of performance for certification by SFGSSD. In either case we do not use the threat of taking the dog away from them. I feel that is to emotionally tolling on the client.

However, there are organizations that use this (*Leased* we will take the dog if you don't do what we say) clause as leverage to mask their own negligence. That is what I have a major problem with in regards to this policy. If the client is being negligent... well... I can see why this can be viewed as acceptable policy. But I do feel "taking the dog away" in most situations is to emotionally tolling on the disabled handler. This is why we will not take the dog but we will not recertify the dog if they (The handler) are the ones that messed the dog up and refuse to comply with our program guidelines. *NOTE Certification is NOT a requirement of Federal law to legally be considered a Service Dog in accordance with the ADA. I do feel that a certification process backed by the Federal Government is in order to clean up a lot of the questionable mess that goes on in regards to Service Dogs. The suggestion of a Federal (License/Certification) is met with a lot of resistance from the owner trainer crowd even with some Service Dog organizations. I guess if I had or was producing questionable Service Dogs I would not want to be accountable either.

half of this post relates to some of the concerns posted by JeaneneR

[JeaneneR]

I can't see government certification with rose colored glasses though, it is a system that I can very easily see being abused by the government. There are a lot of problems no matter what way you look at it... most notably funding and paperwork... who's going to fund the whole project, and more importantly how is it going to change things?

I can say with some certainty that even if you had a government ran certification system with an ID that it wouldn't work, business's don't even know the laws and their rights and responsibilities as pertaining to service dogs as it is. States that require ID's often the business's don't even know what the ID should look like, let along know how to answer it...

Not to mention the drama involved with having to keep the ID on hand and show it everywhere you went... Can you imagine as a non disabled person having to show your driver's license every time you went out to get groceries?

I think something needs to be done... but I think the policing needs to be done internally in the service dog community... and for programs, and trainers to get on the same page as to what is required for a properly trained service dog.

As for getting professional help with training my own dogs. Yes but not with the training but with the evaluation. I do that for my own piece of mind, and for the same reason that I compete with my dogs. Because without having an impartial audience it's impossible to remain completely realistic on where your dog needs work. That's why when I look for a puppy I look for a breeder who Works their breeding stock. I don't want to just hear that they have nice stock that works, I want to see titles on paper and in more than one venue. That's why I compete in several different sports with my service dogs as health allows because I feel that by competing I set the bar higher on the standards of behavior that I expect from my dogs. Add to that the added benefit that it is often fun for the dog and a way for them to let off steam.

Until my physical health became a problem I trained dogs for other's and still do offer advice and evaluations as needed but I find that it's a different line to walk than it is being a service dog handler. Regardless how much we want to be like everyone else and live our life we are very much in the public eye. People are going to be rude, they're going to be curious, they're going to want to touch and feel and push. You have to get used to being on display like an act at the circus... It's impossible to understand how important that bond is between the handler and the dog unless you're living it.

I know a number of very good handlers, and I know a handful of really stupid handlers.

I think the first step to fixing the perceived problem is education, education of the public, of business's and of the service dog community. Because without education no Other policies that are put in place are going to help.

[NewbieShepherdGirl]

I believe it should be up to the states because the more the federal government is involved less power the individual has, which consequently means the less help the individual is being given as people who are more distanced for the situation and the implications of their decision are being given the most power. The more localized the power the better off the people are.

[SFGSSD]

JeaneneR OMG I am having a flashback I recall this same discussion 3 years ago and the same positions and suggestions on "How to move forward to help fix it" were said then. I also cautioned to watch out for ADI as what they will try to do with the military will cut out SD programs that do not agree with their accreditation unjustifiably and they will try to corner a market that should not be cornered because of the demand and supply at this time. I personally know great trainers that are no longer part of ADI because they do not believe in there madness from a training and political standpoint.

When this notion was suggested I was viewed as being paranoid and not giving ADI the benefit of the doubt as Bla Bla Bla... 3 years later this happens. NO Service Dogs that are not from an ADI accredited org are allowed on VA property. Yes I was paranoid indeed

"So how did this happen? Assistance Dogs International (ADI) lobbied a few elected officials and had discussions with the United States Army and the Department of Veterans Affairs offered to manage Service Dog training programs on the national level for all Veterans facilities including Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facilities. What ADI proposed is standards of operation and training service animals with the same level of expertise and training standards throughout the training community. While the ADA does not require certifications for service animals let’s make sure the agencies providing service animals to Disabled Veterans. On paper this is appears to be a great program and is my personal point of view although let’s look at the how ADI is set up and how it hurts an estimated 85% of all Disabled American Veterans with Service Animals. ADI is an organization that certifies only the other organizations, like a club. You pay your dues and you get in.

I reached out to ADI after hearing about "The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Bill" being submitted for the President Obama signature. I actually received a phone call back from Ms Suzi Hall who’s official position is the ADI Coordinator. I personally spoke with Ms Hall and she admitted she did not know all the details of HR 1627 and she promised Mr Hudson would contact me. Mr. Hudson was supposed to call me back because I had many concerns about the ADI Process and which service dogs are actually acceptable to be accredited by ADI if the service animal is To this day (a week later) I still have not heard from either party and now Ms Halls email has been disabled and phone calls are not being returned."

http://www.windchyme.com/Blog/2012/08/07/va-trying-to-ban-owner-trained-service-dogs/

Then there is this

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/09/05/2012-21784/service-dogs

and this

http://www.change.org/petitions/new-va-standards-of-care-and-how-it-hurts-the-disabled-american-veteran



I guess it is safe to say it depends on "WHO" is "Educating". Fair?



When it comes to Service Dogs IMO this needs to be the priority.



1. Certification that actually does guarantee performance within acceptable tolerance (not just falsely implies that it does) as we all know that there are a good number of active service dogs from ADI accredited facilities that could not pass a CGC never mind the PAT that is a requirement of ADI.

2. The needs of a person with a legitimate disability as defined by the ADA are met in regards to a Service Dog to mitigate said disability/s

3. The safety of the PWD as well as the general public in regards to Service Dogs.

THEN you can "Educate" as you have something more solid to back up what you are educating people about. SD, TD, EMA, Real SD, Fake SD, Certified, not Certified, you don't need certification, you don’t need a vest to identify, you should identify... The contradiction and confusion goes on and on and on.

When measures need to be taken to get some kind of handle on this and you have an org that sees $$$$ first, you’re asking for it. I personally am not blaming the DOD or the government for what happened with ADI and the Veterans. I BLAME ADI. But I was just paranoid 3 years ago and this would not happen with "education".

SDS is a non-profit organization that will offer an alternative to ADI accreditation. The priorities of SDS is as stated above. The mission:

http://www.servicedogschools.org/

[Lauri & The Gang]

Originally Posted by SFGSSD

Service Dog Certification involves a lot more than just a CGC it also involves a PAT and task certification to certify the dog on all accounts.

Other than the food part, the PAT test is almost the same as the CGC:

The Public Access Test evaluates the dog's obedience and manners and the handler's skills in a variety of situations which include:
A. The handler's abilities to: ( 1 ) safely load and unload the dog from a vehicle; ( 2 ) enter a public place without losing control of the dog; ( 3 ) to recover the leash if accidently dropped, and ( 4 ) to cope calmly with an access problem if an employee or customer questions the individual’s right to bring a dog into that establishment.
B. The dog's ability to: ( 1 ) safely cross a parking lot, halt for traffic, and ignore distractions; ( 2 ) heel through narrow aisles; ( 3 ) hold a Sit-Stay when a shopping cart passes by or when a person stops to chat and pets the dog; (4 ) hold a Down Stay when a child approaches and briefly pets the dog; ( 5 ) hold a Sit Stay when someone drops food on the floor; hold a Down Stay when someone sets a plate of food on the floor within 18" of the dog, then removes it a minute later. [the handler may say “Leave It” to help the dog resist the temptation.] ( 6 ) remain calm if someone else holds the leash while the handler moves 20 ft. away; ( 7 ) remain calm while another dog passes within 6 ft. of the team during the test. This can occur in a parking lot or store. Alternatively, you could arrange for a neighbor with a pet dog to stroll past your residence while you load your dog into a vehicle at the beginning of the test.

And as I said it would be the MINIMUM I would say a SD needs to have to be a SD.

[ILGHAUS]

SFGSSD, You may want to take the info from your last post here and begin a new thread.

Also some of the background info on this topic can be found in the sticky list at the top of the threads and are there for easy reference.

[ILGHAUS]

When speaking of "a PAT test" or "the PAT test" a point to remember is there is no one official PAT Test. *PAT* just means a Public Access Test and can be designed by any dog trainer, evaluator, or organization.

Some PAT tests are copyrighted and the copyright owner may specify who is allowed to administer it and for what reason.

OTs, if you are taking a PAT test it is best to question the evaluator to know if it is their own test or if it is not then do they have permission to use it. *

Some PAT tests may take a half hour to give while I know of one that is given over the period of several days.

* This is most notable in the case where someone pays an individual to give a PAT test. It is very obvious when a copy of the test shows a printout with (c) of a particular individual and there is a notice that this particular test can only be given by approved evaluators.

[martemchik]

I've always thought it was wrong that people are allowed to train their own dogs...but then you think more about it and not everyone has $20000 to pay for a fully trained dog. I found it weird that there isn't any kind of certification process...but then you think about it and how restrictive that would be.

Problem is the government can never do things the way YOU want them to be done. So ILGHAUS, SFGSSD, Lauri, JeaneneR, myself, and every other person with an opinion on this will have a different thought about how it should be done. Then there's the added cost, and sorry but I don't want the government wasting tax money on certifying trainers/dogs. There aren't enough issues in the United States currently with SDs attacking people or doing things that are so terrible that there is talk about getting rid of them.

Then if you think about a certification process...well I'm guessing there would be an official tag or vest they would give out, along with a license. All things not just easily counterfitted...but also hard to check for if they are fake. And what are stores/public places going to do? Start checking all dogs for registration numbers? Calling some sort of registry each time a dog walks into their store and delaying the PWD while they figure out if their dog is certified or not.

I know its silly but if you make the comparison to a driver's license...you can go your whole life without having one, and still drive a car. It's only an issue if you break the law and get caught. And this is kind of the system we have currently with SDs except without the license. But again, what would a license really add to that system?

[SFGSSD]

Originally Posted by ILGHAUS

SFGSSD, You may want to take the info from your last post here and begin a new thread.

Also some of the background info on this topic can be found in the sticky list at the top of the threads and are there for easy reference.

Will do but what part? Thank you I will use it if it directly relates to what I am talking about.

[SFGSSD]

Originally Posted by ILGHAUS

When speaking of "a PAT test" or "the PAT test" a point to remember is there is no one official PAT Test. *PAT* just means a Public Access Test and can be designed by any dog trainer, evaluator, or organization.

Some PAT tests are copyrighted and the copyright owner may specify who is allowed to administer it and for what reason.

OTs, if you are taking a PAT test it is best to question the evaluator to know if it is their own test or if it is not then do they have permission to use it. *

Some PAT tests may take a half hour to give while I know of one that is given over the period of several days.

* This is most notable in the case where someone pays an individual to give a PAT test. It is very obvious when a copy of the test shows a printout with (c) of a particular individual and there is a notice that this particular test can only be given by approved evaluators.

Could not say it better myself

I have my own that is more in depth than the one from ADI. It is not 7 days long ... only a few hours but has a lot more intence situations the dog is put in and is expected to work through it all.