Faking Service Dogs Hurt Real SD Teams(The Law)

[Headache]

This will be a novel with "Cliff's Notes" at the end.

On reading another thread about service dogs as well as seeing the guidelines from a very popular winter gathering recently posted about(not RTR) it is obvious that many are confused by what the laws actually are and mean, and in being so are misinforming others.  I wanted to get down to the specifics regarding the federal laws protecting legitimate service dogs and their handlers.

First, some acronyms for convenience:

ESA = emotional support animal
SD = service dog
PSD = psychiatric service dog
SA = service animal
ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act

I am NOT going to get into specific state guidelines because they are STATE specific ONLY and while the ADA does allow that when rules of another government entity differ from the ADA, the rule that will apply to the situation will be the one that benefits the disabled person please note that it is in regard to public access only and there are criteria that MUST be followed the main two being:

1) The owner MUST be in control of their animal AT ALL TIMES
2) Must be house broken

If either of those two are broken it doesn't matter how much documentation you think you have, you can be legally asked to leave including the police being called if you don't.

Am I qualified to educate on this?  Maybe.  I have been working with dogs on and off for about 40 years and in cumulative experience about 25 of that.  I am not a "trainer" because I don't work well with people and after a few go rounds with some people that wanted me to train their dogs while they wanted nothing to do with the process I bowed out altogether.  I say I "work" with dogs because they already know how to sit and lie down and it is I that needs to communicate with them what I want.  I have trained service dogs for myself.  I currently do not have one as I haven't found a good candidate but I do have a canine "buddy" I am working with now who is NOT an ESA(emotional support animal) nor a good candidate for one.  I'm a habitual rescue adopter so when I find a shelter dog young enough, stable enough and mild in temperament I'll have found a good candidate.  I'm still looking.

On a side note I have been in contact with the people setting up the gathering in order to facilitate them changing their guidelines and they have been very open and agreeable.  In fact, as I type this they have already changed their rules on their website and are working to finalize those rules that will apply to pet owners, not service dog teams.  Huzzah!

I will provide links and resources to back up everything I post here as of this date.  If any changes are made to the law since my posting it is your responsibility to keep up with them if they apply to you.  I also want to be VERY specific about what this pertains to; this is for service dog teams on the road and at gatherings.  This is NOT in regards to public transportation, residence accommodations or anything outside of van and RV dwelling, camping and gatherings.

Almost all information I provide come from this source:

Americans With Disabilities Act Title III Regulations

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/titleIII_2010_regulations.htm#a104

but I might also cheat and take it from the Cliff's Notes version:

http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

First lets get to the definition of what a service animal is as well as what it is not:

Service animal means 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. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the individual´s disability. Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to, assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, providing non-violent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a seizure, alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors. The crime deterrent effects of an animal´s presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.

Note that a service animal is a dog which has been trained to do work or perform tasks to mitigate disabilities of the disabled person.  I'm being specific with ADA laws and only those that would apply to van dwelling and their associated gatherings because I don't even want to get into why a TURKEY suddenly became a service animal and allowed to fly:

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2016/01...ey-as-emotional-support-animal/1261452807477/


Continued....

 

[Headache]

Continued....

So when is a service animal NOT a dog?  When it's a miniature horse:

In addition to the provisions about service dogs, the Department’s revised ADA regulations have a new, separate provision about miniature horses that have been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities.

That was in response to those who are allergic to dogs or who's personal beliefs will not allow them to work with dogs.

You'll also note that I've highlighted a small section(in the last quote of the previous post) and that is in regards to ESAs.  ESAs generally get a bum rap because they DO provide a very important service to those who's lives benefit from them.  However, they are NOT service dogs and are not afforded the same protective rights that SDs get under the ADA.  So why is that(underlining mine)?

https://www.animallaw.info/article/faqs-emotional-support-animals

An emotional support animal is an animal (typically a dog or cat though this can include other species) that provides a therapeutic benefit to its owner through companionship. The animal provides emotional support and comfort to individuals with psychiatric disabilities and other mental impairments. The animal is not specifically trained to perform tasks for a person who suffers from emotional disabilities. Unlike a service animal, an emotional support animal is not granted access to places of public accommodation. Under the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), an emotional support animal is viewed as a "reasonable accommodation" in a housing unit that has a "no pets" rule for its residents.

The biggest difference between SDs and ESAs are that ESAs provide emotional support only, they are not trained specifically.  SDs are a tool and trained specifically to be that tool.  Asking a service dog handler to not bring their dog with them is the same as asking a wheelchair bound person to not bring their chair.  A cat can be an ESA but it can't be a service animal.

I had to bring this up because there are a lot of people claiming that ESAs are allowed the same public access that SAs do.  This is false.  Some have also claimed you can't ask them anything about what their dog does and this is also FALSE.  You cannot ask a disabled person what their disability is in regard to public access.  I'll get to the questions that CAN be asked shortly.

Public access and where service dogs are allowed.  Basically any campground, restaurant, truck stop, public restroom and gathering that you park your van at a service dog is allowed.  In cases of private property the rules are a bit different.  Only the areas specified as publicly accessed for the gathering are covered under the ADA rulings, the rest is private.  If a property owner has allowed a gathering on the front half of their property they can refuse access to anywhere else on the property not designated for the use of the gathering.

Regarding identifying a SD.  The ADA as well as a couple other pieces of legislation protects disabled people from being forced to identify their disabilities.  This includes having to put a vest on your dog identifying it as a service dog.  If you enter a restaurant and they refuse you service because your dog isn't vested or they require some type of documentation "certifying" your dog as a SD you can call law enforcement and file a report against the restaurant.  Some people carry cards and brochures that specify the applicable laws including state if they have more specific regulations but very few will provide more than what is legally addressed.

When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

As you can see, no sort of paperwork must be required nor asking about the person's disability.  This causes some conflict for those trying to legitimize their "registered" or "certified" dog.

There is no such thing!  Let me clarify that; except for in-house certification there is no kind of registration or certification legally required to prove your dog can do anything.  If coming from a training facility it is for the owner's benefit and use only.  Documentation can't be legally required because it discriminates against disabled self-trainers.  There is no law requiring a dog come from a training facility.

This has been a problem for decades because there are no national standards in place for training.  It's a problem because other than some facilities that have a baseline of training, it isn't until you get into specific task training for the disabled person that the dog becomes "individualized" and considered a service dog, and once individualized it won't fit any "standards".  It's a real conundrum.

So, the two questions that CAN be asked:

1) Is your service dog required because of a disability?
2) What work or task has your dog been trained to perform?

The 2nd question is what rules out ESAs and those trained for general obedience.  Note that neither question identifies a person's disability.  This is important because many people that have PSDs do not have obvious physical impairments.  This does not mean a person isn't disabled!  I'm guessing we've all seen the news clips of veterans being denied access at restaurants because someone that wasn't trained properly though they were faking it.  I'm one of those "assholes" that have no problem defending that person's right to be in that public space including calling the police.

The most a business can do is ask the 2 questions, casually observe and if a situation occurs they can ask them to leave after offering them service without their dog present:

A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence

If a dog is sitting on their owners lap or at the table in some way(not next to or under it), if it is not remaining next to the owner and tries to greet others as they walk by, if it's begging for food, then the handler does not have control of the dog and can be asked to leave if they refuse to remove their dog.  These are just some of the things you can use to identify a fake service dog.  I've seen all of them including someone that let their dog lick their plate!


I hope you have found this helpful.  Here is some additional information you might find helpful as well:

http://servicedogcentral.org/content/node/509

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...nimals-access-public-places-other-settings.ht

https://www.animallaw.info/article/faqs-emotional-support-animals

 

[SoulRaven]

Note that a service animal is a dog which has been trained to do work or perform tasks to mitigate disabilities of the disabled person.  I'm being specific with ADA laws and only those that would apply to van dwelling and their associated gatherings because I don't even want to get into why a TURKEY suddenly became a service animal and allowed to fly:

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2016/01...ey-as-emotional-support-animal/1261452807477/

Minor point of clarification, it did NOT "become a service animal", rather it was considered an emotional support animal. For someone who's setting themselves up as knowledgeable on the subject and eager to educate us I should hope you could respect the differences between those two definitions.

From the article:

While we can't always accommodate all pets, Delta employees made a judgment call based in part on the extensive documentation from the customer," ....

According to the National Service Animal Registry's website, all domesticated animals, regardless of species, may qualify as an Emotional Support Animal. "These animals do not need any specific task-training because their very presence mitigates the symptoms associated with a person's psychological/emotional disability, unlike a working service dog," the website states.

I find it humorous too, but if there was extensive documentation proving the matter then who am I to judge?

Anyway, I wish this information could be disseminated from the attitude of everyone helping each other out, rather than eager to point fingers and discredit others. The turkey story, funny as it is, is legit and you are misrepresenting it. That's not cool at all. :/

 

[Tussah]

This is very interesting information.    

This summer, I've noticed quite a few people bringing their small dogs into the grocery store while shopping, and I'm personally happy to see it, whether the dogs are SDs or not.   It's just too hot to risk leaving an animal in a car in the Phoenix, Arizona area during the summer months, even for a few minutes.  My impression is that nobody even wants to ask whether the animal qualifies or not, because nobody wants to risk seeing an animal put outside.

 

[Txjaybird]

So, the two questions that CAN be asked:

1) Is your service dog required because of a disability?
2) What work or task has your dog been trained to perform?

:huh:

I feel that answering the 2nd question is a "Catch 22" for some folks.

It could become a problem answering this without disclosing the disability.

I think my answer would be:
" she/he is trained to alert to my immediate current health issues when necessary to assist me "

Some people I know with myself included in this group feel that it's no ones business what my health issues are unless I volunteer the information.  Especially in a public place full of strangers. 
                   I really do not play well with strangers when I feel pushed or under attack.

Thank You For The Info And The Links

Jewellann

 

[Headache]

For someone who's setting themselves up as knowledgeable on the subject and eager to educate us I should hope you could respect the differences between those two definitions.

Anyway, I wish this information could be disseminated from the attitude of everyone helping each other out, rather than eager to point fingers and discredit others. The turkey story, funny as it is, is legit and you are misrepresenting it. That's not cool at all. :/

I wish people could be helping each other out rather than pointing fingers too.  I didn't set up anything and was very clear about my purpose and my objectives so you might want to loosen up.

I made ONE mistake out of an entire post that took quite some time to prepare and you appear to discredit me based on the accidental misuse of one word in one place.  You are misrepresenting me and that's not cool either.    Have a nice evening.

This summer, I've noticed quite a few people bringing their small dogs into the grocery store while shopping, and I'm personally happy to see it, whether the dogs are SDs or not.   It's just too hot to risk leaving an animal in a car in the Phoenix, Arizona area during the summer months, even for a few minutes.  My impression is that nobody even wants to ask whether the animal qualifies or not, because nobody wants to risk seeing an animal put outside.

While I'd rather see the dogs in the store too I have to ask what they are doing bringing their dogs in the car in Phoenix?  I used to live there and remember what the summers are like so they have no excuse to not leaving them at home or rerouting their errands and are abusing laws meant to protect the disabled.

I am not compassionate in regard to this.  Not when I see legitimate teams getting kicked out of public places while others take advantage of laws that don't apply to them.

I think my answer would be:
" she/he is trained to alert to my immediate current health issues when necessary to assist me "

You did that without disclosing your health issue and you can't be asked for anything further regarding it.  In general and this isn't required we've been giving them 2-3 things our dogs have been task trained for.  You can even say that your dog is trained to alert for immediate health issues and leave it at that.

Some people I know with myself included in this group feel that it's no ones business what my health issues are unless I volunteer the information.  Especially in a public place full of strangers. 
                   I really do not play well with strangers when I feel pushed or under attack.

I feel the same and the law protects us from that.  Some people feel the need to prove that people who don't have obvious disabilities or bring a dog into a public space are fakers.  I had some business cards I used to carry that have the regulations on them.  I am assuming most do this out of ignorance rather than on purpose and I approach it with that in mind but some people take it way too personally and try to provoke a negative reaction so they can prove their ignorance correct.  Unfortunately this is not a rare occurrence.  Thank you for the kind words.

I will vote on the side of those NOT HAPPY to see people bringing their dogs inside the grocery store. Dogs are dogs and most owners don't have a clue on how to control them (Yes I said control). Dogs do inappropriate things at times and I think it would put a damper on my grocery shopping experience to see a dog squatting (!!clean up on aisle three!!).

Exactly!  This illegal and inappropriate behavior makes it harder on legitimate teams in the long run.  Hey I get it, I'd love to take my current dog everywhere and do to the places she's allowed to be but if a store has an "only service dogs" sticker on the door I respect it.

Unfortunately the 2nd biggest issue regarding service dog handlers and trainers defending themselves is that they are frequently forced into confrontation and treated with judgemental hostility.  This serves no one and harms those who are legitimately a part of the process to defend those rights and laws protecting the disabled.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/illegal-fake-service-dogs-pose-dangers-to-many/
http://frankiethelawdog.com/2011/08/the-problem-with-fake-service-dogs/
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fake-service-dogs-growing-problem-f8C11366537
http://www.anythingpawsable.com/fake-service-dog-complications/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/05/fake-service-dog-certificates_n_3709720.html

 

[mayble]

.....
1) The owner MUST be in control of their animal AT ALL TIMES
2) Must be house broken

If either of those two are broken it doesn't matter how much documentation you think you have, you can be legally asked to leave including the police being called if you don't.
.....

I admit I didn't read the rest of the post or thread, because I've seen how these things generally go.

If everyone followed these rules, there wouldn't be any concern over "fake" or "legitimate" service animals.  Animals who don't cause problems generally don't attract much attention.
If every pet owner followed those rules, pets would be allowed to go most anywhere their owners go whether they are service animals or companions and  the owner's health wouldn't even be an issue.  But alas, this is the US.

 

[gcal]

This is very interesting information.    

This summer, I've noticed quite a few people bringing their small dogs into the grocery store while shopping, and I'm personally happy to see it, whether the dogs are SDs or not.   It's just too hot to risk leaving an animal in a car in the Phoenix, Arizona area during the summer months, even for a few minutes.  My impression is that nobody even wants to ask whether the animal qualifies or not, because nobody wants to risk seeing an animal put outside.

How about the owner leaving the dog at home in the a/c? It irritates the dickens out of me to see someone's dog, which has probably just run thru the piddle it just did outside the store door, sitting in a cart where I have to put my groceries.

 

[Tussah]

How about the owner leaving the dog at home in the a/c? It irritates the dickens out of me to see someone's dog, which has probably just run thru the piddle it just did outside the store door, sitting in a cart where I have to put my groceries.

FWIW, all the dogs I've seen in stores have been very well behaved, and well in control.  Obviously, there's no way for me to know whether they are service dogs or not, and frankly, I don't care, since they are all very nice, well behaved dogs, and aren't bothering me or anyone else.  I suspect that the store managers feel the same way, especially since there is no legal way for them to distinguish between service and non-service dogs.

 

[gcal]

FWIW, all the dogs I've seen in stores have been very well behaved, and well in control.  Obviously, there's no way for me to know whether they are service dogs or not, and frankly, I don't care, since they are all very nice, well behaved dogs, and aren't bothering me or anyone else.  I suspect that the store managers feel the same way, especially since there is no legal way for them to distinguish between service and non-service dogs.

Our experiences with dogs in businesses have obviously been different.

 

[GotSmart]

One thing that bothers me to no end about SD's, is the ignorant people that want to handle a working animal.  Poking at it, trying to feed it, or petting it without asking.    

You do not mess with a police dog, why bother a service dog?  

Watching how a SD and their partner work together is a joy for me to watch.  To someone that is familiar with SD's, it only takes a few seconds to tell if the dog is trained, or just a spoiled pet.  

 

[DannyB1954]

Two ladies are walking their dogs and decide to go to a pub for a drink.
But we have the dogs one says. The other replys we will say they are service dogs.

First lady hits the pub and door man says sorry no dogs. Lady says service dog. Doorman says OK. Second lady hits the pub. Doorman says sorry no dogs. Lady says service dog. Door man says lady that is a Chihuahua. Lady says, WHAT! they gave me a chihuahua?

 

[Headache]

especially since there is no legal way for them to distinguish between service and non-service dogs.

Included in my post are the legal ways they can.

 

[Richard]

The problem here is ... There are people who circumvent the laws simply because they want to.  
... Personally, I think all service dogs should wear ID.  That will eliminate the problem.
Well, it will until the American Trash find a way around it.

To be clear, as long as 'good' operates by a set of rules, those who are 'bad' will find a way around those rules.

That said, the more rules made in order to prohibit 'bad' behavior, the more opportunities we make for 'good' folks to get caught unintentionally breaking a rule. And, in the 'rule of law' paradigm (where "ignorance of the law is [deemed] 'no excuse' "), that appears to result in a lot of 'good' people getting caught in a dragnet of infractions despite the presumed good intentions of rule- and law- makers.

All that said to say this:  this reactive notion of making more and more rules to try to interfere with people bent on breaking the rules whenever it suits them isn't really a good approach to solving the problem. The real problem is one of character. And, to make matters worse, that character is tolerated, or sometimes even encouraged, by the dominant culture.

 I'm reminded of a quote often attributed to Einstein that says problems cannot be solved by the same mindset that created them. As such, I think we'd all do better to step outside of that mindset if we're truly interested in solving these kinds of problems.

Hey, a guy can dream, right?

 

[highdesertranger]

come on people lets keep this civil. highdesertranger

 

[SternWake]

I love dogs but I hate the ME first, me always, and me forever attitudes that have infected the hyper entitled, self obsessed, able to justify anything, rules do not apply to me, population of today.

When I catch myself exhibiting any of these disgusting human attributes, I hate myself for it.

 

[DannyB1954]

come on people lets keep this civil.  highdesertranger

Well then euthanize them. 
Just kidding. I would like to see a name put onto those blue parking passes. Then LE could site those kids using grandpa's car to park in handicap spaces. As it is now, LE can not ask for proof of a handicap. 

With service dogs, maybe there could be something placed on a person's driver's licence.  Maybe DMV could require a prescription from a licensed doctor. That way the dog would not need to be certified, but the person would.

Some businesses do not require a dog to be a service dog to enter. At Home Depot if I can park in the shade I leave my dog in the vehicle, If not she comes inside and goes for a ride in the shopping cart. I keep a large towel that I can fold up for the upper child seat. I can guarantee that she gets more love from strangers than I do.

 

[cyndi]

When the handicap tags are renewed they include a copy of your license, in most states, now. this can be covered to avoid identify theft.

 

[gcal]

Well then euthanize them. 
Just kidding. I would like to see a name put onto those blue parking passes. Then LE could site those kids using grandpa's car to park in handicap spaces. As it is now, LE can not ask for proof of a handicap. 

With service dogs, maybe there could be something placed on a person's driver's licence.  Maybe DMV could require a prescription from a licensed doctor. That way the dog would not need to be certified, but the person would.

Some businesses do not require a dog to be a service dog to enter. At Home Depot if I can park in the shade I leave my dog in the vehicle, If not she comes inside and goes for a ride in the shopping cart. I keep a large towel that I can fold up for the upper child seat. I can guarantee that she gets more love from strangers than I do.

Danny, the dog needs to be certified, too. It needs to be tested for temperment and proper training. It needs not only to perform its task, but to ignore people and other dogs, to be clean, to be calm and well behaved in public areas, and to be in good health.

 

[Richard]

Richard:  "... this reactive notion of making more and more rules to try to interfere with people bent on breaking the rules whenever it suits them isn't really a good approach to solving the problem. "

Okay.  So.... can we just kill them on sight?

Rules address behavior. Behavior isnt the problem -- it's merely a symptom.

If a person believes behavior is the problem rather than a symptom, then more rules may seem like a solution.

My point is that behavior follows such things as intention and belief; that behavior stems from 'deeper' places where character and integrity live. As such, if we want to solve the problems, we need to get beneath the surface symptoms to engage the cause of said behavior.

That's a tall order. I didn't say I had an answer. What my earlier post did was distinguish between attempting to coerce behavioral conformity, and attempting to solve the problem at it's root.

Rules may still be necessary, but they're not sufficient. That's the challenge before anyone's seeking solutions.