Service Dogs (found one rule that looked suspicious, not at any Disney park)

[tzolkin]

curious. what would be acceptable proof? I'm thinking of other things that require a license and there's significant red tape to go through. Many trades and professions require licensing. Driving requires a license. All of these things need to have rules and regulations along with licensing boards associated with them. So...to license a service dog...what would that look like?

At minimum there should be some basic testing like for therapy dogs where you would have an in-person exam and receive a certification and tag. I have trained a therapy dog before and any dog that would be used in any service capacity should easily be able to pass the therapy dog test. Any legit service dog should be well behaved enough to ignore distractions, stay with it's handler, and follow basic commands.

That wouldn't eliminate people from faking a need for a service dog, but at least those "fake" service animals would be much better behaved when their owners take them out in public than many of the dogs I see now. And it would give business owners something they could easily ask a guest to show proof if they have someone enter with a questionable dog.

 

[GAN]

I think they should change the rules and folks with service dogs should need to provide proof, so that those with fake service dogs or emotional support animals don’t pretend to have real service dogs.

Exactly ....and anyone with a legitimate Service Dog should appreciate the enforcement

 

[GAN]

To be honest, some service dogs may be distracted or bothered by the vest and plus the vest may be too hot for them during the summer. There is no official service dog registry in the United States. The service dog registries you see online are scams and to be honest, anybody can "register" any dog online at these sites. Plus, anybody can buy documentation, ID tags, vests, and even badges online as well too and put it on any dog. It is not these items that qualify a dog as a service dogs, it is the extensive training that it receives and the way the dog behaves in public. Training a dog to be a service dog to ADA standards and requirements can take at least three or even more years.

Emotional Support Dogs and Therapy Dogs are not service dogs under the ADA and therefore are not allowed access in places that are open to the public where pets are not allowed. Emotional support dogs are dogs that are meant to be kept at home and are there for comfort and companionship due to a mental health condition and do not require any training. The only place they are required to be allowed by law is in housing units that are covered under the Fair Housing Act (does not apply to hotels, motels, and resorts) that pets are not allowed upon presentation of a note from a doctor.

Therapy Dogs are dogs used in a nursing home, schools, hospitals, or a group home to provide comfort to a group of people rather than just their handler. These dogs are not service dogs and do not have access rights like emotional support dogs do not.

I agree with the vest being an issue at times ...but that doesn't mean that you couldn't bring it with you and display it when entering and explain the situation, then tuck it away. I think it's pretty easy to spot a service dog anyway ...so with or without the vest really doesn't matter in my mind.

 

[momz]

At minimum there should be some basic testing like for therapy dogs where you would have an in-person exam and receive a certification and tag. I have trained a therapy dog before and any dog that would be used in any service capacity should easily be able to pass the therapy dog test. Any legit service dog should be well behaved enough to ignore distractions, stay with it's handler, and follow basic commands.

That wouldn't eliminate people from faking a need for a service dog, but at least those "fake" service animals would be much better behaved when their owners take them out in public than many of the dogs I see now. And it would give business owners something they could easily ask a guest to show proof if they have someone enter with a questionable dog.

how would a standardized test be developed and who would develop it? Who would administer such a test and what government agency would certify that person? There must be a government licensing board in place to make these decisions, so who would be placed on those boards and who would approve their placement (would they be elected or would the state governor appoint them and if the governor decides then does the legislature need to vote to approve such an appointment?)? Now, once an animal is certified or licensed or whatever designation is necessary...what to do when there is a perceived violation, such as when a service animal or their handler commits some sort of violation of the rules that the board has established? well..there would need to be a review...and who would do that?

Other questions I have because several have mentioned that there "should" be a certification process:
How much does this cost and who pays for it? Does the disabled person incur the cost, after all other licensing situations require the licensee to pay the fees...so is this something that the disabled person is now responsible for?
What are the consequences of an infraction...I assume there will be infractions because if service animals are to regulated that means there must be rules and whenever there are rules, they will be broken. So...are there fines, or some other sort of consequences?
what happens to the animal that loses their license for whatever reason?
Should there be a requirement that the handler carries insurance related to this license or certifications (after all, most other situations where a license is required, the person must maintain insurance)..and who pays for that?

I think everyone who is saying that a service animal must be certified or licensed has not thought about the costs and the oversights involved in such a demand. All of this would essentially eliminate many people from being able to ever qualify their animal. It's already expensive and there are many issues to deal with when getting a service dog in the first place. All your demands for certification makes it that much harder for the disabled person.

As far as the zoo is concerned....they are not exempt from following ADA guidelines. they can ask the appropriate questions and the can limit access to certain areas as this is provided for in the ADA. But they cannot demand things of the disabled person such as a particular harness. But...if the animal is not behaved, if it is a nuisance or causes a problem, the ADA does allow that animal to be removed based on their behavior.

 

[momz]

At minimum there should be some basic testing like for therapy dogs where you would have an in-person exam and receive a certification and tag. I have trained a therapy dog before and any dog that would be used in any service capacity should easily be able to pass the therapy dog test. Any legit service dog should be well behaved enough to ignore distractions, stay with it's handler, and follow basic commands.

That wouldn't eliminate people from faking a need for a service dog, but at least those "fake" service animals would be much better behaved when their owners take them out in public than many of the dogs I see now. And it would give business owners something they could easily ask a guest to show proof if they have someone enter with a questionable dog.

I disagree that making it harder for disabled people to have access to the tools they need (a service animal) is the solution. The problem is not service animals. When someone brings an animal into a facility, there is an expectation that the handler has command and control over the animal...if they don't then they can be required to remove the animal. Following this plan does not impose on the rights of the disabled.

 

[Kestryl]

That is very suspect. Dogs who are properly trained to be service dogs spend years becoming immune to distractions. The guy’s response also seems suspect.

I was in a supermarket recently. There was a very small girl walking around with one of the biggest pit bulls I’ve ever seen. Not shopping, just walking. I really got the sense that if things went bad, she would have difficulty controlling that dog. I steered clear.

Yeah, if I had to bet, I would not think that the dog was a service dog. Maybe it was truly a one-off situation, but I don’t know why the guy (or anyone in his group) didn’t intervene before the employee got there.

 

[Planogirl]

I wonder if even a properly trained dog couldn’t agitate some of the zoo animals? This never occurred to me before.

 

[tzolkin]

All of this would essentially eliminate many people from being able to ever qualify their animal. It's already expensive and there are many issues to deal with when getting a service dog in the first place. All your demands for certification makes it that much harder for the disabled person.

Are you saying that there is absolutely no training done with service dogs? I assumed that in order to be a service animal, a dog would need to have some training in order to provide a service? How would requiring a very basic behavior test eliminate dogs from qualifying as a service animal? Any dog that is out and about with people in busy public places should be well behaved enough to pass such a test.

I do understand some of your other logistics and enforcement issues, but a therapy dog exam or canine good citizen test takes like 10 minutes and costs $20. Surely if a dog went through an entire training program to provide a service for someone with a health condition or disability they could conduct a 10 minute test before the dog "graduated", right?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

...but that doesn't mean that you couldn't bring it with you and display it when entering and explain the situation, then tuck it away.

It presents a quandary here because the act of having a vest on a dog does not make them a service animal because a service animal is based on what they do..as in their service..to the owner. Nor does ADA require a dog or mini horse (because that is also able to be considered a service animal) to have a vest for them to be a service animal.

Those who need a service animal do not all have vests for them. I sometimes only see a leash that has the words on it, sometimes nothing at all. You're right it's not an imposition to have the vest on the dog and you'll likely find many that do but it would be an imposition for those who do not have own one to begin with and they are not required to have one in order for their animal to be considered a service animal. I do believe this is what prompted the OP to have questions (among the documentation part of their information).

Thinking about this it may be that for the zoo it's something they use to easily identify the dogs but also at a zoo dogs aren't just roaming the pathways either like at a dog park for instance. So it's like what's prompting these requirements? and are those requirements in line with accommodations to those who need a service animal under exceptions made for specific environments.

 

[AndreaA]

I disagree that making it harder for disabled people to have access to the tools they need (a service animal) is the solution. The problem is not service animals. When someone brings an animal into a facility, there is an expectation that the handler has command and control over the animal...if they don't then they can be required to remove the animal. Following this plan does not impose on the rights of the disabled.

How is requiring service dogs to be trained and therefore registered/licensed an imposition upon a disabled person? True service dogs REQUIRE tons of training. That training is generally done by specific organizations. Simply getting the proper paperwork when you acquire the dog would be a pretty easy and seamless solution.


As for the vest - I simply do not believe that a vest is in any way a distraction to any true service dog. Seeing-eye dogs wear a vest and harness and handle, for goodness’ sake. There are plenty of mesh vests that could hold a ticket/badge with the required license. True service animals are also usually VERY expensive, so saying that the cost of a VEST is prohibitive is simply ridiculous. I imagine that whatever service is training/providing the dog can throw in a vest. Honestly, I can’t believe someone would say that purchasing a vest or providing proof of training is somehow impinging upon the rights of the disabled. Those costs are minuscule compared to the lifetime costs of owning a dog. If someone cannot afford a vest for their dog, I question how they can afford the dog at all. They are expensive animals to feed and vet and license, etc., etc., etc.. A vest can be had for under $20 and lasts for years! Do some people get free food/vet care somehow?

 

[GAN]

I think everyone who is saying that a service animal must be certified or licensed has not thought about the costs and the oversights involved in such a demand. All of this would essentially eliminate many people from being able to ever qualify their animal. It's already expensive and there are many issues to deal with when getting a service dog in the first place. All your demands for certification makes it that much harder for the disabled person.

I’ve given it thought, and it’s expensive to obtain a service dog …maybe $15-20,000. Sure, not every vision-impaired(for example)person has the means, but that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to rescue a dog from a pound, call it a service animal and bring it with them in restricted areas anymore than I should bring my dog. In public I honestly don’t see many service(or even comfort for that matter) animals that I’d ever question …the only time I’ve ever noticed a problem is at Disney. There is no world in which a “comfort” dog should be in a crowded park on a 90 degree day with no protection for their paws, providing “comfort” at the expense of their own discomfort. There’s a lot of abuse and these people need to be called out …

 

[Karin1984]

I’ve given it thought, and it’s expensive to obtain a service dog …maybe $15-20,000. Sure, not every vision-impaired(for example)person has the means, but that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to rescue a dog from a pound, call it a service animal and bring it with them in restricted areas anymore than I should bring my dog. In public I honestly don’t see many service(or even comfort for that matter) animals that I’d ever question …the only time I’ve ever noticed a problem is at Disney. There is no world in which a “comfort” dog should be in a crowded park on a 90 degree day with no protection for their paws, providing “comfort” at the expensive of their own discomfort. There’s a lot of abuse and these people need to be called out …

And with that we get back to the good old discussion about health insurance, health care, and the advice not to get sick or need help in the United States.

In my country a service dog only costs the food and care they need after they get to your home. You even get a vest, leash, basket and brush with the dog from the organization that regulates it.

Everything before that, the training of the dog, but also the matching process, practical training of the human (yes, you get trained as well), the visits in the first year, is all paid for by the organization.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

And with that we get back to the good old discussion about health insurance, health care, and the advice not to get sick or need help in the United States.

In my country a service dog only costs the food and care they need after they get to your home. You even get a vest, leash, basket and brush with the dog from the organization that regulates it.

Everything before that, the training of the dog, but also the matching process, practical training of the human (yes, you get trained as well), the visits in the first year, is all paid for by the organization.

What?? Trying to figure out how we went from talk of service dogs to a criticism of US healthcare.

 

[Karin1984]

What?? Trying to figure out how we went from talk of service dogs to a criticism of US healthcare.

Because someone brought the costs involved of getting a properly trained dog into the discussion.

If someone is getting a dog at a bonafide place, or just calls it a service dog because of the cost, it gets back to how being healthy and in this case independent in the US is a costly business.

 

[NightGuardianAngel]

As far as paperwork goes, also, the ADA does require a service dog to go through a lot of training, but there is no requirement that the training has to be done by a professional. The owner or even a family member or a friend is allowed to train their own dog to be a service dog just as long as the training meets the standards required by the ADA to legally qualify as service dogs. Hiring a professional trainer is extremely expensive and cost prohibitive to some families. Training one own dog to be a service dog is one way to save a lot of money and a wonderful option to those who do not have the money to hire someone to do the training. The ADA does not require documentation of the training and many service dog owners who do the training themselves do not document the training and do not keep a paper trail. The dog is not legally a service dog until it demonstrates full mastery of all of the requirements and qualifications specified by the ADA to qualify as a service dog including mastering the tasks required to accommodate the diagnosed disability or medical condition.

Also, to be eligible for a service dog, in addition to the above, you must have a diagnosed disability or a medical condition that impairs a major life activity (definition of a disability according to the ADA).

 

[sasywtch]

This topic irritates me and my response may anger some people. My daughter is paralyzed and I (and her) have to deal with proof, parking issues (people parking in a handicap spot with no placard etc) on a regular basis. Every person that she knows that has a legitimate service dog is proud to show any proof that the dog is a service dog. They all wear a vest or collar indicating they are a working dog. I think the ADA has bent over to people who want to just go around the system or whine about everything. I believe there should be proof. I also think you can blame all the people bringing their pets into the store and other places when they aren't working/emotional animals. I saw one at Walmart a few days ago jump up and grab a package of meat. Certainly not a working dog. I can see the zoo wanting proof as there are dangerous animals in that zoo. Why would you NOT want to prove that your animal is a service animal at the zoo? Fees? To take your dog out, I'm assuming they had all their shots and their county license? How did that get paid? If they haven't had their shots and county license, why are you taking them out? States can adopt a no fee based on income to help those that can't afford the fee. But then again, people will complain that they had to show proof. Trust me, I heard it for 25 years working for the state. When my daughter had to give up her driver's license and get an ID card, the worker asked her for a copy of her disability statement or an EBT card. My daughter could afford to pay but if she couldn't, she wouldn't have had a problem showing proof of her income (or lack thereof). Instead of, why are they doing this to disabled, turn it around to, isn't it great that if you are low income, you can get some state licenses free or showing proof I can take my dog into the zoo. Think of the zoo who probably has had their fair share of people bringing pets (not service animals) into the zoo and had bad interactions with other zoo animals. Say to yourself, it's great they require proof so that my animal is not in any danger to the zoo animals or any other service animal that may be in the zoo that day.

 

[Karin1984]

As far as paperwork goes, also, the ADA does require a service dog to go through a lot of training, but there is no requirement that the training has to be done by a professional. The owner or even a family member or a friend is allowed to train their own dog to be a service dog just as long as the training meets the standards required by the ADA to legally qualify as service dogs. Hiring a professional trainer is extremely expensive and cost prohibitive to some families. Training one own dog to be a service dog is one way to save a lot of money and a wonderful option to those who do not have the money to hire someone to do the training. The ADA does not require documentation of the training and many service dog owners who do the training themselves do not document the training and do not keep a paper trail. The dog is not legally a service dog until it demonstrates full mastery of all of the requirements and qualifications specified by the ADA to qualify as a service dog including mastering the tasks required to accommodate the diagnosed disability or medical condition.

Also, to be eligible for a service dog, in addition to the above, you must have a diagnosed disability or a medical condition that impairs a major life activity (definition of a disability according to the ADA).

So, besides all the explanations of the ADA, what was your issue with the zoo and what is your opinion?

You explain a lot, but not how you feel about it.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Because someone brought the costs involved of getting a properly trained dog into the discussion.

If someone is getting a dog at a bonafide place, or just calls it a service dog because of the cost, it gets back to how being healthy and in this case independent in the US is a costly business.

That’s a stretch, imo. If someone needs a service dog, there are ways to get one, as there are ways to get healthcare when needed, as well.

 

[bcla]

So, besides all the explanations of the ADA, what was your issue with the zoo and what is your opinion?

You explain a lot, but not how you feel about it.

Obviously there are some strong opinions that some people just bring along their dogs when only "service dogs" are allowed, even without any specific training or a need for a service dog. But there are all sorts of claims that many just buy service dog vests for their pets in order to get around the rules that non-service dog pets aren't allowed.

 

[Karin1984]

Obviously there are some strong opinions that some people just bring along their dogs when only "service dogs" are allowed, even without any specific training or a need for a service dog. But there are all sorts of claims that many just buy service dog vests for their pets in order to get around the rules that non-service dog pets aren't allowed.

Yes, I got that. I want to know the OP's thoughts on this. I am always intrigued by threads were people ask for opinions but don't give their own.