|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|01-27-2013 09:01 PM|
Originally Posted by SFGSSD View Post
|01-27-2013 08:08 PM|
The policy change by TDI stops ALL service dog handlers from registering their service dog as a visiting therapy dog for a dual role. This is about the DOG and it has nothing to do with discriminating against anyone. If TDI said: (for instance) Nobody that has a DAD or a Seeing eye dog but a PTSD dog is ok, they then would CLEARLY be discriminating as it is no longer about the dog it is about the specific disability.
As it sits now, IT IS NOT discrimination as the policy is all about the dog NOT the disabled handler or the disability. PET Partners will register a Service Dog as a visiting therapy dog to function in a duel role if you choose. As a word of caution: If you want to go down that road with PET Partners, do so at your own risk! If you wind up experiencing degradation in training or associative behaviors that causes you to be injured they (Pet Paertners) will not take responsibility for allowing you to do this. You legally have a right to do this dual role at this time, just as TDI has a legal right to look out for the best interest of the dog and its members in relation to their Registered Therapy Dogs.
|01-27-2013 04:27 PM|
Originally Posted by SFGSSD View Post
|01-27-2013 02:13 PM|
While I agree that not all types of Service Dogs for PWD that are distracted on the job pose a "life threatening" associative behavior picked up from the dual role of a SD/TD, it is conflicting to the dog none the less, It has been proven and shown that this practice (not sticking to a single discipline) at the very least a cause of degradation in performance of a working dog. The associative behaviors that are created from said dual role can also translate to the Service Dog behaving inappropriately in public as they will eventually try to go to someone (person or child) on their own, or cued by someone other than the handler. Pending on the severity of the associative behavior resulting from conflict, it can cause a mobility dog to go to anyone unexpectedly in public. This sudden associative reaction can cause the handler to fall and break a hip for instance. Or the dog can be viewed as disruptive and “not under control at all times” (This legally gives any business owner, store manager etc.. the legal right to deny access and the handler must remove the dog from the premises... but may return without the dog to complete their business in said public place.) Putting a PWD with a SD in a position that legally could separate them from the dog in order to complete their business in public is also very dangerous for many types of disabilities. The General statement of "It is dangerous" covers this and many other “for instances” of what can happen if associative behaviors present itself while the dog is functioning as a Service Dog in public.
In your own words as a Professional Working Dog Trainer and Evaluator, would you mind explaining why you are a “firm believer in a single discipline for a dog.”? While I tried to explain this myself, earlier in this thread, I admit and thank the lord that I am a dog trainer and not a writer, because I definitely would not make it in that profession.
Posted by ladylaw in red below:
" my friends with dogs for PTSD can use all the interaction with people that they can get. It helps them heal. goes with the agoraphobic handlers as well. their problems stem from fear of a public venue. if this makes sense." In response to this, we can get more indepth in another thread as this is to much to cover right now.
|01-27-2013 09:21 AM|
|ladylaw203||I am a firm believer in a single discipline for a dog. However, with regard to the danger aspect,I think it depends on what the service dog's function is. A DAD, dog for the blind etc, does not need to be distracted at all from what his function is for the handler. my friends with dogs for PTSD can use all the interaction with people that they can get. It helps them heal. goes with the agoraphobic handlers as well. their problems stem from fear of a public venue. if this makes sense|
|01-27-2013 12:56 AM|
As one canine professional to another I am sure you understand the impact of putting a working dog in direct conflict, and the associative behaviors that result from said conflict.
I applaud Theresa for her efforts in advocating and providing legal terminology and explanations of said terminology and law to people with disabilities. I also applaud her for posting and providing legal regulations as well as explanations of these regulations to the general public and people that have an interest in Service Dogs for themselves or in general. I also applaud her for supporting Service Dog efforts for disabled people in general.
As a professional in this field, I feel it is important to stand up for what is right in this field from the prospective of area of expertise. In this case for me it would be the training, conditioning and performance maintenance of a Working Service Dog for people with disabilities and working dogs in general. I am not a Lawyer or an expert on Law and admit I have been guilty of misinterpreting it (what the law says and means) a few times in my life. Part of being a good professional is not only standing up for what is right but also admitting error and correcting said error no matter who you are friends with, or what your political motives may be, it does not change right from wrong from a professional standpoint.
Also, from one professional to another in the training aspect of a working dog, I am sure you a well aware that mixing a pet mentality with a working dog can seriously compromise the dog.
|01-26-2013 12:47 PM|
|ladylaw203||I have been training,handling, certifying yadda yadda police service dogs for 25 yrs. I don't see what is being discussed as being particularly dangerous depending. Folks have a right to their opinions. Some folks claim one breed is better for this or that for example. Opinions. Theresa has been helping in the service dog industry for a long time. I have placed dogs as service animals and she has advised me with regulations etc to help them. How's about duscussing in a professional manner|
|01-25-2013 11:43 PM|
Sorry, this line got the beginning of an alternate sentence it should read:
1. "Dakota interacts with children without being cued"
This shows that if the dog just sees children he will just interact with them. No cue needed.
missed the editing time to fix it on the post.
|01-25-2013 11:26 PM|
Originally Posted by martemchik View Post
You got that right! I will respond to another post as well on this.
NO did not forget as I DID post the whole thing that was the most amusing part of the statement. But as you are "confused" I will spell it out.
1. "Dakota interacts with children without being cued"
This shows that the dog this shows that when the dog sees children he will just interact with them.
2."and he does seem to know that these children require special attention"
So he is even more attentive to "these children" then maybe an average Therapy Dog?
So if that is the case when the dog is visiting or sees "Special Children" the dog goes to these children "without being cued" btw, and gives them "Special Attention"
3." but always remains attentive to me as well" this makes no common sense never mind sence from a training perspective. If you add 1 + 2 in this instance the answer of 3 is hysterical Thats like a kid saying "I go outside for resess even if I do not have permission and I play real hard with the kids outside but am attetive to my schoolwork at the same time I am playing Yeah no associative behaviors will develop there
It is someone that is giving dangerous and bad SD training advice to people that does not know better. Some of the statements made are very misleading and dangerous if taken seriously in a SD training capacity. This (SHE (I am a HE BTW)) as I will not name directly right now, IS NOT a professional working dog trainer (SD or otherwise). Therefore has no business to give advice in that capacity. Especially if there is risk that an inexperienced disabled owner trainer takes that advice thinking it is coming from a professional SD trainer and gets hurt. But again like HER (NOT me or my) website says "I am not responsible". Yeah… no accountability makes it right To cry discrimination on a personal vendetta (and she has a few "Personal" vendettas) is unprofessional. This is why she lost the respect of A LOT of professionals in the field.
So in closing, these dogs ARE NOT PETS they are working dogs. Attempting to inject a PET mentality in the working dog field is just asking for trouble. If you do not understand fully, might I suggest you shadow a working dog TRAINER and ask questions and see things first hand if you have a real interest in this field.
I hope that clears things up for you
|01-25-2013 01:22 PM|
I wouldn't want a Service Dog to be a Therapy Dog. But I wouldn't want a Service Dog to be a Schutzhund Dog either. However, what people do with their dogs, is their own decision.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|