S/O..have you ever had a thread go south on you?

[jevs]

----
Oh my! Perhaps it is a good thing I've currently only got enough energy for the DIS

All jokes aside. That forum put me off forums for years until I started on the DIS

 

[mummabear]

I'm sorry for your aunt's severe disability, and I'm guessing it must be difficult for her to even venture outside, given her issues. Even being near someone with pet dander or hair on their shirt would be dangerous.

For what it's worth, a service dog is "any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability." At least in Canada, only Seeing Eye dogs are currently protected under legislation (meaning your aunt cannot legally object to their presence in her Starbucks). As far as I've heard, standards are currently being drafted for dogs that perform other services, such as detecting seizures and acting as "hearing ear" dogs, as well as psychiatric dogs.

Ideally, a service provider, if faced with both, say, a person with a service dog and your aunt, would attempt to find some reasonable accommodation for both of them. Who gets priority will depend on many different factors.

By the way, many vets are being paired with dogs for psychiatric reasons these days, including the WWII vet in my final picture.

I honestly cannot tell if your first statement is sarcastic?
Yes she is extremely allergic to dog, cats, rabbits and horses and even the hair on clothes can effect her, she cannot enter our house even if we board the pets and wash the carpets.
She had an incident last July when a friend lent her a jacket on a night out as she was cold and it was this friends riding jacket. So bring on a plane say with a dog on board would not be possible for her.

As far as being a service dog:

Psychiatric Service Dog: Assists a person with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or PTSD.

It is an important distinction of a psychiatric service dog that it performs a specific task to assist its person, as is the case with all service dogs. Some examples are:

1. A person suffers from PTSD and is prone to nightmares, and their service dog is trained to wake them from their nightmares.

2. A person suffers from PTSD and is not comfortable venturing alone into public places, and their service dog is trained to move in and stand as a barrier between them and anyone who approaches.

3. A person occasionally does something unconsciously which physically harms themselves, such as pulling or picking at something, and their service dog is trained to alert them to their actions.

In each of these examples if the dog was not trained to perform the task described, and it was simply its calming presence that kept the person from having nightmares, helped them feel comfortable venturing into public places, or kept them from harming themselves, it would not qualify as a service dog.

 

[mummabear]

Which may or may not be available to them.

Either way, it's six of one, half dozen of another, as far as which one "trumps" the other.

Reasonable arguments could be made for both.

We will agree to disagree in this see then.
Emotional support is secondary to breathing in my book.

 

[mummabear]

Don't give up yet! I almost had an Inception moment in this thread; a thread about threads going south...going south LOL

Lol I didn't miss the irony

 

[Pea-n-Me]

We will agree to disagree in this see then.
Emotional support is secondary to breathing in my book.

That's fine. People with family members with asthma no doubt see it one way; people with family members with severe PTSD and other psychiatric issues may see it another. I see both sides.

 

[mummabear]

What did the S/O mean?
I have seen it at the start of a few threads.

 

[Magpie]

I honestly cannot tell if your first statement is sarcastic?
Yes she is extremely allergic to dog, cats, rabbits and horses and even the hair on clothes can effect her, she cannot enter our house even if we board the pets and wash the carpets.
She had an incident last July when a friend lent her a jacket on a night out as she was cold and it was this friends riding jacket. So bring on a plane say with a dog on board would not be possible for her.

As far as being a service dog:

Psychiatric Service Dog: Assists a person with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or PTSD.

It is an important distinction of a psychiatric service dog that it performs a specific task to assist its person, as is the case with all service dogs. Some examples are:

1. A person suffers from PTSD and is prone to nightmares, and their service dog is trained to wake them from their nightmares.

2. A person suffers from PTSD and is not comfortable venturing alone into public places, and their service dog is trained to move in and stand as a barrier between them and anyone who approaches.

3. A person occasionally does something unconsciously which physically harms themselves, such as pulling or picking at something, and their service dog is trained to alert them to their actions.

In each of these examples if the dog was not trained to perform the task described, and it was simply its calming presence that kept the person from having nightmares, helped them feel comfortable venturing into public places, or kept them from harming themselves, it would not qualify as a service dog.

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. Your aunt clearly has a severe, life-limiting disability, that prevents her from being around a lot of other people in public places (I'm looking at the amount of cat hair I'm wearing right now, and thinking she wouldn't survive sitting next to me on the bus).

And as far as definitions, we agree. Trained service dogs are trained service dogs, regardless of what they're trained for. In each of the three examples you gave, the dog is as necessary to the disabled person as a wheelchair or medication, or other disability-related equipment.

There is really no easy answer. Your aunt cannot expect people with these sorts of service dogs to be barred from the establishments she visits. She cannot expect them to be ejected from planes, when she wants to fly. At best, it's a "first come, first served" situation.

I can imagine she must have some sympathy for people who need service animals, however, as allergies are also often not taken seriously by people, just as psychiatric disabilities aren't. I was allergic to milk as a kid, and I can't count the number of times people would assure my mum and me something was perfectly safe, only to mention later that they'd cooked it with just "a little butter" (as I was being sick). So I expect it's hard to go out with your trained service dog, only to have people give you the side-eye and mutter sarcastically about people who can't go anywhere without their "cuddly".

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

What did the S/O mean?
I have seen it at the start of a few threads.

Spin Off I believe is what it means.

 

[PollyannaMom]

It is unfortunate when the needs of one disabled person conflict with the needs of another, and balancing them can be tricky. Mental illness can be just as disabling (or, in some cases, even more) as being blind or hearing impaired or mobility impaired. And that's not even counting people who have seizure detecting dogs! Service animals and their owners deserve respect, regardless of whether their disability is visible or invisible.

I love the pics of the dogs!!

And I don't think anybody means that trained service animals for diagnosed disabilities (physical or psychological) should not be respected. I think it's dishonest people claiming that a regular pet is a therapy animal just for convenience that irritates people who have their own physical problems with animals.

(And for the record, I don't have problems with animals, and love seeing them out and about myself!)

I agree with you that it's so hard to balance conflicting needs. I think businesses will eventually figure it out, though, so they can accommodate everybody. In the long run, they want all our business, so they'll try to find a way.

And I do think it would be OK, if there is more then one flight going between two cities in a day, to designate one animal-friendly and one animal-free, one nut-friendly and one nut-free, etc. Everyone needs to be accommodated, but I don't think that has to mean everyone's choices need to be unlimited. I think people have to share and compromise.

 

[PollyannaMom]

What did the S/O mean?
I have seen it at the start of a few threads.

Spin Off I believe is what it means.

Yes, exactly. Either another thread has inspired a thought, and the person didn't want to hijack that thread, or it just made them think of a similar topic to start.

 

[DawnM]

There was/is a forum that a poster from this board started. I went there for a while, but several things happened, including allowing religious bullying (one guy seemed to take it upon himself to make fun of anyone with any religious leanings at all), so I left.

People can be mean.

 

[ronandannette]

I had one go slightly towards south and just decided to delete it rather than try and respond in a way that wouldn't provoke more argument.

What can I say? I hate confrontation. And I've seen too many threads where the OP comes back to defend/explain further and the whole thread derails completely.

How did you manage that? You can't delete anything other than your own posts on the DIS and even then if they've been quoted by others they are permanent. I've seen countless posts by an OP saying "Mods - please delete" when things take a turn the OP doesn't like, but yet the threads persist...

 

[Cogswel_Cogs]

Had a few go south. Doesn't really bother me when people don't agree with me and I am pretty open to others views so the people that were not ,I listened to even resolved that maybe I was wrong for being as annoyed as I was about the situation. But there were a couple of people who were nasty in their approach, doesn't really bother me because , those people really don't bother me.

 

[Pixiedustaway]

Yes... I'll just leave it at that.
;-)

 

[Magpie]

I love the pics of the dogs!!

And I don't think anybody means that trained service animals for diagnosed disabilities (physical or psychological) should not be respected. I think it's dishonest people claiming that a regular pet is a therapy animal just for convenience that irritates people who have their own physical problems with animals.

(And for the record, I don't have problems with animals, and love seeing them out and about myself!)

I agree with you that it's so hard to balance conflicting needs. I think businesses will eventually figure it out, though, so they can accommodate everybody. In the long run, they want all our business, so they'll try to find a way.

And I do think it would be OK, if there is more then one flight going between two cities in a day, to designate one animal-friendly and one animal-free, one nut-friendly and one nut-free, etc. Everyone needs to be accommodated, but I don't think that has to mean everyone's choices need to be unlimited. I think people have to share and compromise.

I agree completely!

The problem is, people make unkind assumptions about other people. They see a person with a small dog at Disney, and they assume this person is faking their disability in order to drag a pet around everywhere. They talk about how you can buy service vests online. They tell stories of people "cheating" the system and getting away with stuff they shouldn't get away with. Even if the person has a note from their doctor or psychiatrist, supporting their need for this animal or testifying to the fact that the animal is trained, it's often not good enough. A person's "emotional issues" shouldn't take precedence over someone else's allergies, because allergies are real and your emotional issues are your fault/a sign of a weak character/etc.

When I see someone with a small dog at Disney or in Starbucks, I can't tell from looking at them whether that dog is trained, or whether they have a legitimate need for it. So I'm not going to jump to conclusions, one way or another.

What would be nice is if regulatory bodies could get their act together and start certifying and regulating therapy animals. We've been so successful with dogs for the blind, we should apply that to more disabilities!

 

[tvguy]

. We've been so successful with dogs for the blind, we should apply that to more disabilities!

While there are well known institutions that train guide dogs for the blind, there is no certification or licensing for them either. They fall under ADA just like all other service and support dogs. However, the disability they are being used for is usually apparent.

 

[SoccerDogWithEars]

How did you manage that? You can't delete anything other than your own posts on the DIS and even then if they've been quoted by others they are permanent. I've seen countless posts by an OP saying "Mods - please delete" when things take a turn the OP doesn't like, but yet the threads persist...

If I remember correctly, I think I reported my own original post and it opened a message to the mod, and I asked them to delete it. It had only gotten a couple of responses

 

[Magpie]

While there are well known institutions that train guide dogs for the blind, there is no certification or licensing for them either. They fall under ADA just like all other service and support dogs. However, the disability they are being used for is usually apparent.

I'm sorry to hear that it's so different in the US.

In Canada, people who use Guide dogs and their dogs have clear legal protections. They cannot be refused service or accommodation, and the dog is afforded a legal status similar to that of its human owner, and anyone who violates the law by denying a guide dog access can be fined.

There are thirteen training facilities accepted under the "Blind Person's Rights Act", and the Attorney General issues identification cards to people with qualifying dogs (meaning they were trained in one of those 13 facilities).

About 10 years ago, there was an effort to draft legislation covering people with other disabilities, beyond the blind, but it basically died in committee. Hopefully, we can get back to that, since it seems to be needed. At the moment, people with other service animals rely on the protection of their provincial Human Rights Code.

In Ontario, this means that denying a person with a service animal access to a facility IS discrimination on the basis of disability, so long as the person can prove that they have a disability and demonstrate that the animal is necessary for reasons related to that disability. In practice, this usually means the disabled person must get a medical professional to prescribe the animal, and then carries medical documentation with them. You can see how this becomes awkward in cases of psychiatric disability, where social stigma is still an issue, and people often want to preserve their medical privacy.

I feel like we're half way there. But, it's better than having no standards at all.

 

[fortwildernessishome]

Not on a thread that I started, but on someone else's that I was trying to help. The poster had never been to either of the Disney water parks and was asking if you could bring your picnic lunch/cooler into the Disney water parks. I have been to both Typhoon Lagoon and Blizzard Beach easily over 100 times each. I told the poster, that yes, you can bring in all of the food/drinks that you want, just no glass. I further explained that when you arrive at the park, you pick an area and secure a couple chairs to throw your shoe's, towels, cooler, shorts, t-shirts etc.

I was totally attacked by many posters who apparently had never been to a Disney water park!!!! Ugh!! I was called names and told I was a "chair hog"!!!! These folks seemed to think that you put all of your stuff in lockers and you would go back and forth to lockers all day long!!! I did learn that at the Wisconsin Dells water parks (I am from NH and have never visited a water park in Wisconsin!!!) you store everything in a locker or a large group picnic area with picnic tables far away from the water or chairs!!!! Ha, ha!!

The Disney water parks are set up for a family to claim a couple chairs to put their clothes/coolers/etc. near or on. They do not have lockers for every guest that enters the park and they do not have vacant space to store things, but they do have LOTS and LOTS of chairs. Like I said, I had/have been to Disney water parks hundreds of times and when guests arrive at opening, everyone goes and grabs some chairs to ditch their stuff on and return to later in the day. Its just the way it is.

Its true that if you are there in a really busy day and arrive at noon time, it will be hard to find a chair, BUT, you also may not be able to get a locker or even find a speck of pavement or sand to toss your stuff either!

But some of the folks on the boards that day, would have none of that. Like I said, it was obvious they had never been to the Disney water parks and their experience was more with chairs on cruises or resort pools (or the Wisconsin Dells!!!) which you obviously don't store your stuff on for the day.

It was an eye opening experience for me about some posters!!

 

[Kitty 34]

All jokes aside. That forum put me off forums for years until I started on the DIS

I'm glad you joined the DIS as part of your "recovery", Jo.