German Shepherds Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 100 Posts
Thanks to everyone for your advice.


My real question was more about understanding how these dogs become service dogs officially. This neighbor brings his dog to work and has the full blown service dog vest and everything. I'm 99.9% certain that service dogs are not supposed to attack children. I've read where service dogs are sometimes doctor prescribed. Are these dogs certified? Are there state tests they have to pass? Is it a federal program? Who regulates these dogs? I'm really starting to think that the place where he got this dog is not really distributing true service dogs. It's a dishonor to everyone who gets one of these poorly trained dogs (thinking they are true SDs), and it has now become a problem to anyone who lives around someone with one of these poorly trained dogs.


I'll see if you guys know, and I'll also google it.

I've taken your post down into Q&A style so as to answer you in an easy format.


"The neighbor brings his dog to work" ... anyone can take a pet dog on the job if the employer allows it. Some people must put in a formal request and undergo a process to seek permission to do so. We don't know the details on this situation of your neighbor so anything said here would only be opinions based on no real information.

"and has the full blown service dog vest and everything" ... vests are easy to purchase via the Internet. Patches are also easily purchased.
Registering a SD, buying gear and official looking ID are only as hard to buy as going through any of dozens fakers/scammers who sell these things online.

Q. 17 Does the ADA require that service animals be certified as service animals?
A: No. Covered entities may not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has
been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal, as a condition for entry.

There are individuals and organizations that sell service animal certification or registration
documents online. These documents do not convey any rights under the ADA and the
Department of Justice does not recognize them as proof that the dog is a service animal.

Frequently Asked Questions about Service Animals and the ADA
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Disability Rights Section

" I'm 99.9% certain that service dogs are not supposed to attack children." ... A SD should never bite anyone without just cause and under no circumstances should ever attack anyone of any age. A bite to protect itself or their handler can be validated in some cases, but then the dog should be evaluated by a behaviorist to make sure the dog is okay to go back into service. In the case as cited above there is no justified reason for that dog to have attacked anyone much less a child. At that point it should be treated as any other aggressive dangerous animal. It should never be used as a SD in public or even taken out into public again without a muzzle and then only as needed such as a trip to a veterinarian.

"I've read where service dogs are sometimes doctor prescribed." ... No, a doctor or other mental health care professional can prescribe an Emotional Support Animal (ESA). An ESA is not a Service Dog. These are two separate legal classifications.

A doctor can in their professional opinion state that a SD would be of help for their patient.
This can be of importance for the patient to be aware of especially if the doctor makes a notation in the medical files as a point of consideration if there is ever a future need.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) the Federal Agency mandated by Congress to oversee Title II and Title III of the ADA does not require a doctor to sign off on any forms or letters that their patient needs or could be helped by using a SD.

"Are these dogs certified? Are there state tests they have to pass? Is it a federal program? Who regulates these dogs?" ... in short no. A Program SD is certified per the in-house policies of the program that trained it, but these are only for the program's internal record keeping. The DOJ has given a definition of what a SD is. There are various documents that have been published on the behavior of a SD. There are Federal and sometimes State Laws on Service Dogs. If a SD becomes a community problem or is dangerous they are treated as any other potentially dangerous dog. By virtue of being trained as a SD does not give the animal license to act in an aggressive manner.

"I'm really starting to think that the place where he got this dog is not really distributing true service dogs. It's a dishonor to everyone who gets one of these poorly trained dogs (thinking they are true SDs), and it has now become a problem to anyone who lives around someone with one of these poorly trained dogs." ... nothing more can be said to your statement here. You are 100% correct in this.
 
Wulf - Glad your son is going to be okay.. sounds like there is a whole lot of gray area with SD reading this thread..

You're in the middle of things and sometimes emotions and other factors make decisions like reporting/not-reporting difficult. I know you have lots of concerns and the correct course of action is hard to see.. Those that have taken the time to read your post and comment can perhaps see things more clearly because they're not emotionally invested..

For the record I also believe you need to talk with your neighbor about rabies shots. From your original post, I'm not sure an adult owner of the dog even knows this happened. You can ask them to "self reported" the incident during the conversation without being confrontational about it. If they say they haven't or won't you can act surprised and remind them that it's their responsibility to do so.. Also that "it looks so much better to AC when you self report".. A little passive/aggressive but it will put them on notice that this isn't going to be swept under the rug. Let some time go by and follow up with AC to check the status of the report? Then file the report if they have not done so.. Just my opinion.. I wish you the best and hope things turn out..
 
Wulf, the simple answer to your question is no one regulates it. You got a lot of responses, but not what you really wanted. Read your initial post again and put yourself out of the equation. If you were reading this from someone else, what would you say to them?


I sincerely pray this dog doesn't kill the next child because odds are it will attack another child.
 
OP, have you considered that the more time you allow to go by with inaction, makes you less believable? The neighbor can deny this ever happened - it wasn't 'his' dog. The authorities would ask, "Why didn't you report this immediately? Why didn't you take your son for medical treatment?" You worry about how many pets you have and your pension. Have you worried about being considered an unfit parent and having your children taken away? I honestly don't think you have thought this through. Your response, or lack there of, does not seem normal to the rest of us.

My daughter was bitten by a dog, when she was 6. It was her fault. I admit that. We were at the horse farm. It was an old farm dog. I was yelling, "NO!" as I saw what she was about to do. She bent over and hugged the old dog who had been sleeping. He bit her in the face. It wasn't a bad bite. Hardly broke the skin. He wasn't a nasty dog. She surprised him and should not have. Even so, I immediately went to the owner and told him what happened. All I wanted to know was, "Is your dog up to date on his shots?" There was no yelling or accusations. I later called his vet to verify the shots. I called my pediatrician who felt since it wasn't a bad bite and both my daughter and the dog were UTD on shots, it was OK. I covered my bases.

You have not covered your bases. If this dog attacks another child you will, as others have stated, share in the blame. Can you live with that?
 
Agree. This is your child. It sounds like there are a lot of small children around and this dog is let to run wild. It's a dog that has already shown it will bite a child, from a breed renowned for mauling kids. It makes no sense to not at least inform the owners. Dog had fun the first time, there is no reason it won't bite again.
 
Thanks to everyone for your advice.


My real question was more about understanding how these dogs become service dogs officially. This neighbor brings his dog to work and has the full blown service dog vest and everything. I'm 99.9% certain that service dogs are not supposed to attack children. I've read where service dogs are sometimes doctor prescribed. Are these dogs certified? Are there state tests they have to pass? Is it a federal program? Who regulates these dogs? I'm really starting to think that the place where he got this dog is not really distributing true service dogs. It's a dishonor to everyone who gets one of these poorly trained dogs (thinking they are true SDs), and it has now become a problem to anyone who lives around someone with one of these poorly trained dogs.


I'll see if you guys know, and I'll also google it.
I'm 100% certain NO dog should attack kids, but unfortunately it does happen. Forget about the whole service dog thing. For every legit, reputable trainer and organization there's a group of goofs scamming the whole thing.
 
I'm still stuck on how the heck can a person get fired and lose his retirement as punishment for violating an animal ordinance? I'm truly curious. It's outside of my realm of experience.
 
OP, have you considered that the more time you allow to go by with inaction, makes you less believable? The neighbor can deny this ever happened - it wasn't 'his' dog. The authorities would ask, "Why didn't you report this immediately? Why didn't you take your son for medical treatment?" You worry about how many pets you have and your pension. Have you worried about being considered an unfit parent and having your children taken away? I honestly don't think you have thought this through. Your response, or lack there of, does not seem normal to the rest of us.

My daughter was bitten by a dog, when she was 6. It was her fault. I admit that. We were at the horse farm. It was an old farm dog. I was yelling, "NO!" as I saw what she was about to do. She bent over and hugged the old dog who had been sleeping. He bit her in the face. It wasn't a bad bite. Hardly broke the skin. He wasn't a nasty dog. She surprised him and should not have. Even so, I immediately went to the owner and told him what happened. All I wanted to know was, "Is your dog up to date on his shots?" There was no yelling or accusations. I later called his vet to verify the shots. I called my pediatrician who felt since it wasn't a bad bite and both my daughter and the dog were UTD on shots, it was OK. I covered my bases.

You have not covered your bases. If this dog attacks another child you will, as others have stated, share in the blame. Can you live with that?
I totally agree that if another child is bitten or killed, the weight of that will be heavy on you!
 
I am a little surprised reading back over this thread seeing commentors who normally would go into overkill at the slightest infraction of the law turn a blind eye to OP's neighbors owning a banned breed. These same people can't even find it to speak out about the dog being off leash and they surely would have had the breed been a non fighting breed puppy, or other normally innocuous breed, as has happened in the past.

It makes me wonder what is truly behind all the harassment members receive on other threads for such things as having well behaved dogs off leash or about other people not cleaning up dog poop when there are no receptacles and other minor, harmless infractions of the law.

Does one get to pick and choose what laws to follow? Is it a matter of convenience? Just what is it? Does it have something to do with the breed? Does owning specific breeds endow those owners with an automatic free pass to break the law without the usual outcry? Who makes that decision?

I have seen the finger pointed at OP, his introverted wife, his job and even the number of his pets, ... a lot of victim blaming, even blatantly stating his concerns over his job and pension seem crazy and improbable. Yet, nobody points the finger at the neighbor whose reckless and irresponsible actions has inflicted what has been deemed a dangerous animal by his community's law makers, with the support of his community, upon his family neighborhood resulting in a child being attacked.

OP's best option at this point, which also protects his family, pets, job and pension, would be to turn this law breaker in for owning a banned breed. He should let the authorities know that the Pit Bull is responsible for an unreported attack on a child. This can all be done anonymously and would be in OP's and the community's better interest.

OP, I am truly sorry what people have said to you on this thread and for the aspersions they have cast on your concerns. Your child has been attacked and bitten, you did not deserve to be treated so poorly.
 
Speaking for myself only....I did not realize pits were banned where OP lives, obviously I missed that part? So that did not even factor into anything I said.

I suggested that the OP report the bite to the appropriate authorities hoping that those authorities would force the owner of the pit to control it properly because the actions of the pits owner so far made me think they aren't going to do any better with this dog until someone forces them to.

And if OP is in the US and it is really a service dog, that usually trumps state legislation banning breeds. So I believe you can have a pit bull SD even in a place where pit bulls are banned. But I also don't know what country OP is in...
 
Speaking for myself only....I did not realize pits were banned where OP lives, obviously I missed that part? So that did not even factor into anything I said.

I suggested that the OP report the bite to the appropriate authorities hoping that those authorities would force the owner of the pit to control it properly because the actions of the pits owner so far made me think they aren't going to do any better with this dog until someone forces them to.

And if OP is in the US and it is really a service dog, that usually trumps state legislation banning breeds. So I believe you can have a pit bull SD even in a place where pit bulls are banned. But I also don't know what country OP is in...
OP has stated the breed is banned in his community. A Pit Bull SD would trump a banning BUT there would be a lot more accountability and documentation required in such a case, in essence: prove it.

Even if it were a documentable SD, it won't be the first Pit Bull SD to bite or attack. It just opens up a whole new venue that needs to be addressed.
 
Save
Speaking for myself only....I did not realize pits were banned where OP lives, obviously I missed that part? So that did not even factor into anything I said.

I suggested that the OP report the bite to the appropriate authorities hoping that those authorities would force the owner of the pit to control it properly because the actions of the pits owner so far made me think they aren't going to do any better with this dog until someone forces them to.

And if OP is in the US and it is really a service dog, that usually trumps state legislation banning breeds. So I believe you can have a pit bull SD even in a place where pit bulls are banned. But I also don't know what country OP is in...
It appears that in order to circumvent a breed banning for a SD, exemption ordinances must be passed.

Pit bull service dog attacks three people in Yakima | Local | yakimaherald.com
 
Save
I have seen the finger pointed at OP, his introverted wife, his job and even the number of his pets, ... a lot of victim blaming, even blatantly stating his concerns over his job and pension seem crazy and improbable. Yet, nobody points the finger at the neighbor whose reckless and irresponsible actions has inflicted what has been deemed a dangerous animal by his community's law makers, with the support of his community, upon his family neighborhood resulting in a child being attacked.
To be honest MAWL, and I would say there's a certain amount of finger pointing from me, I have a very difficult time understanding not going directly to the neighbor and speaking to them about it. And if you live in a place where there are strict rules that can effect your employment and pension and then you choose to ignore them? You talk about reckless and irresponsible, your families security and well being put aside for a couple extra cats?

Even if the neighbor was a good friend or we hated each other, if you don't want to go to animal control this time you can't just explain to him that dog better not be on your property again and I want proof of his rabies vaccination right now? The neighbor may be the biggest goof in the world but you have a responsibility as a husband and father to your family.
 
It appears that in order to circumvent a breed banning for a SD, exemption ordinances must be passed.

Pit bull service dog attacks three people in Yakima | Local | yakimaherald.com
I really wish they wouldn't publish this kind of information in newspapers as it really opens a door that shouldn't be opened. How many more will read this and decide they can do it, too.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the city is only allowed to ask if the dog has been trained as a service animal, and what kind of service it performs. Caruso said the city is not allowed to ask for documentation showing the dog's training or proof that the person registering a service animal is actually disabled.


This has to be a hard reality for the OP, his child was bit and yet he feels behind the eight ball if he reports it. Now he has to live with the fear that what if the dog gets out again? His wife and kids could just be walking to their car and the dog could get out and attack again, maybe seriously hurting or maiming one of his children, they could be walking to the door from the school bus, going out for the mail, etc.. If his phone rings at work he has to be afraid it might be the call that says his child is on the way to the hospital. He now, because of his job and pension, he has to live in fear.
 
To be honest MAWL, and I would say there's a certain amount of finger pointing from me, I have a very difficult time understanding not going directly to the neighbor and speaking to them about it. And if you live in a place where there are strict rules that can effect your employment and pension and then you choose to ignore them? You talk about reckless and irresponsible, your families security and well being put aside for a couple extra cats?

Even if the neighbor was a good friend or we hated each other, if you don't want to go to animal control this time you can't just explain to him that dog better not be on your property again and I want proof of his rabies vaccination right now? The neighbor may be the biggest goof in the world but you have a responsibility as a husband and father to your family.
Steve, OP was put in a predicament that predates this incident and had chose inaction. If we were to point fingers, the time to do so was before this child was attacked.

To be told: "In any case, maybe this is a warning to begin downsizing and/or not replacing animals when they pass, and remaining under the limit in the future. If you follow the rules, you have a lot less to fear." is victim blaming to the nth degree. What a terrible thing to say to somebody who has had their child attacked and by the same token is worried about their job and pension regardless of their role in the scenario. How can one point an accusatory finger at OP as a lawbreaker and in essence, reaping what they sow for their errant ways while deliberately ignoring the role and actions of the neighbor who chooses to break a law that endangers people and pets in the community?

On a more personal note, if you had some of my neighbors, you would not go to them either.

I think blaming strict rules where OP lives for his employment and pension predicament is really reaching. I speculate that OP's job hinges on him keeping a squeaky clean record as his job might entail him being upheld as a role model to children or other such consideration. Either way, it is none of our business and has nothing to do with his neighbor owning a banned breed that attacked his child. That is 100% on his neighbor.

People keep telling OP to keep his extra cats inside, did I miss something? Did OP even say he owns cats? Regardless, I agree that the health and welfare of one's family is a priority. But lets be honest, his community did not put dog breeds on pieces of paper and pull names out of a hat to ban a breed. There is a valid reason that his community banned Pit Bulls and if we are to fault OP on anything, it should have been his lack of action in turning the Pit Bull in to the proper authorities in the first place. He didn't. Nobody did. And now his child was bitten by a banned breed. It could have been worse, a child or pet could have been killed. It happens. If anything, OP's actions BEFORE the attack were reckless and irresponsible and led to this incident.

Let me take a moment to make it quite clear that the purpose of breed banning and BSL is to prevent the initial bite or attack, not to punish after the fact. To say he is reckless and irresponsible now, is like closing the barn door after the horse got out.

I agree that he should enquire into the rabies vax status, but to each their own. There is a reason that OP is reluctant to approach this neighbor, he is not obligated to tell us. After all, his question is about the making of a service dog, not what he should do about this bite.

IMO, I think the question now is what is OP going to do about this Pit Bull, and all the other Pit Bulls he states are illegally in this community? Does a child need to be mauled or killed? How about a German Shepherd puppy, would that be a viable sacrifice?

I understand your position as a father, and rightfully so. Most of us don't understand how the welfare of a child doesn't have top priority.
 
Save
I really wish they wouldn't publish this kind of information in newspapers as it really opens a door that shouldn't be opened. How many more will read this and decide they can do it, too.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the city is only allowed to ask if the dog has been trained as a service animal, and what kind of service it performs. Caruso said the city is not allowed to ask for documentation showing the dog's training or proof that the person registering a service animal is actually disabled.


This has to be a hard reality for the OP, his child was bit and yet he feels behind the eight ball if he reports it. Now he has to live with the fear that what if the dog gets out again? His wife and kids could just be walking to their car and the dog could get out and attack again, maybe seriously hurting or maiming one of his children, they could be walking to the door from the school bus, going out for the mail, etc.. If his phone rings at work he has to be afraid it might be the call that says his child is on the way to the hospital. He now, because of his job and pension, he has to live in fear.
From some of the comments on this thread by people far more knowledgeable about service dogs than I am, it seems that is already is a huge problem, newspaper articles or not.
 
Save
I am a little surprised reading back over this thread seeing commentors who normally would go into overkill at the slightest infraction of the law turn a blind eye to OP's neighbors owning a banned breed. These same people can't even find it to speak out about the dog being off leash and they surely would have had the breed been a non fighting breed puppy, or other normally innocuous breed, as has happened in the past.

It makes me wonder what is truly behind all the harassment members receive on other threads for such things as having well behaved dogs off leash or about other people not cleaning up dog poop when there are no receptacles and other minor, harmless infractions of the law.

Does one get to pick and choose what laws to follow? Is it a matter of convenience? Just what is it? Does it have something to do with the breed? Does owning specific breeds endow those owners with an automatic free pass to break the law without the usual outcry? Who makes that decision?

I have seen the finger pointed at OP, his introverted wife, his job and even the number of his pets, ... a lot of victim blaming, even blatantly stating his concerns over his job and pension seem crazy and improbable. Yet, nobody points the finger at the neighbor whose reckless and irresponsible actions has inflicted what has been deemed a dangerous animal by his community's law makers, with the support of his community, upon his family neighborhood resulting in a child being attacked.

OP's best option at this point, which also protects his family, pets, job and pension, would be to turn this law breaker in for owning a banned breed. He should let the authorities know that the Pit Bull is responsible for an unreported attack on a child. This can all be done anonymously and would be in OP's and the community's better interest.

OP, I am truly sorry what people have said to you on this thread and for the aspersions they have cast on your concerns. Your child has been attacked and bitten, you did not deserve to be treated so poorly.
I actually kind of get why he's not saying anything (assuming he's right about his job and pension being on the line), but I think what people are reacting to is the perceived failure by the OP to advocate for his child. I think that shocks people, to be honest.

We know the neighbors won't take precautions. They don't care. They should clean up after themselves (in a figurative sense), but they won't. Should OP have to? No, not in a perfect world. But will he have to if he wants to effectively protect his child? Likely. He has two bad choices to pick from. I can see why he chose the one he did. I still think it's a bad choice and I stand behind saying so. It just might be less bad than the alternative.

And on the number of pets thing: OP cited this as the reason why he was afraid to speak up. Okay. So maybe think about cutting back, or looking into a permit that would allow him to have extra animals. Something that helps him not have to fear relying on the system if he needs it. It's just logical. Again, I stand behind saying that.
 
21 - 40 of 100 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.