If certification were required, then presumably places of public accommodation would be allowed to ask for it. So people with legit service dogs would get asked for their “papers.” If no certification is required, then places of public accommodation can ask only the two questions mentioned earlier. And regardless of certification, or status as a service dog or not, no place is required to tolerate a misbehaving dog.
So it’s putting a burden on people with legit service dogs (professionally trained or not) because of the actions of people who are abusing the system.
Also, Beck, the ADA is a law. So the ADA can’t issue anyone anything.
Good grief. I have answered this 20 times. For my own edification and too learn what it was. What in provided.
Trust me. It’s Worthless. It wouldn’t help you if your untrained dog went nuts in a store and broke something. It won’t help you if your dog bit someone.
They’ll give you a list of attorneys who might take your case. It’s a big scam.
The government could.
Maybe a emblem on a state ID card? They already issue those.
It could be done.
Trained guide dogs, working service dogs and their people are flapping in the wind. With no proof.
It’s like driving a car. Well looks like you can drive. You have a car. You must be allowed to drive. Without a lisc.
Correct, others that do not require a service animal.
It’s not an exception to the law. It is the law. The law allows a disabled person to make use of a service animal.
What law do you think it’s an exception to? An ordinance that you can’t take a dog into a restaurant? Or a movie theater? A Federal law that you can’t bring a dog on a plane?
I don’t see why the ADA would be an exception to those, but maybe I’m overlooking something.
The issue is that people bring their misbehaved pets to inappropriate places and complain if asked to remove them. So address that issue.
Don’t try to fix it by requiring trained service animals to prove their not the problem. It won’t address the actual issue.
Health laws say you can’t take a dog into a restaurant. There are a ton of laws that allow owners of private property to exclude animals even if they allow access to the public. Service Dogs are allowed where other dogs are legally excluded. That’s called an exception.
No, it’s called a conflict of laws and there is method to resolve it. Presumably a Federal law granting a service animal the right to be in the dining area supersedes a State health code. Even still, there are restrictions on service animals – they can’t be in a food prep area for example.
Given the widespread shift in allowing dogs in restaurants and pubs, it seems to be a wanning concern anyway.
I’m not sure about a ton, but even still why do those laws count as laws and the ADA as an exception? Why not the other way around? The ADA allows service animals in places of public accomodations and those laws add exceptions? That seems more appropriate when comparing a Federal law and a State or local law or ordinance.
And as @eschrodinger said, a disruptive service animal can be ejected.
Only you are comparing them, and for no reason. The Federal Law makes an exception to the ordinary rules for service dogs. The entirety of the problem is the inability to enforce the ordinary rules. And that problem can easily be corrected.
So what, though? The same is true of virtually everything in society. Why should I pay for the military? I’m not the one invading the country. Why should I pay for police? I’m not the criminal. Why should I have to show my driver’s license? I’m not the bad actor here.
Everyone has to pay some cost to prevent abuse. Including that on freedom itself (Why can’t I own a nuclear weapon? I’m not going to use it on a city.). Disabled people should get allowances in some ways but should not be able to opt out of all costs.
Out of curiosity: disabled people are required to display a placard in their vehicle if they wish to park in a handicapped space. No placard means a ticket, even if they are disabled. Do you think such laws should be relaxed so that no placard is necessary, because it obviously imposes a burden on the disabled?
I’m not following your point, but I think we’re on a hijack.
The issue is the Rule Breakers, not the Rule Followers. The solution isn’t to add new rules for the Rule Followers.
The Assistant Manager at McDonalds is not going to ask to see the certificate for a customer’s misbehaving dog for the same reasons they don’t do anything about it now.
I saw a lowly door greeter at Walmart try to stop a guy from going in a Walmart with a cart load of Yorkie puppies. He started off telling the guy you are not allowed to ask me questions why I need the dogs with me. (Remember these are baby Yorkies. 4 of them). The door greeter said “I don’t think those are service animals, sir”
The man said “Well, you can’t stop me” and walked in.
I told my daughter they’ll catch him and boot him out.
Nope, met him in the pet food dept., the produce, saw him checking out.
Some folks just don’t know how to act in normal (as far as Walmart is normal) places.
What’s the value in certifying service animals? What does it do? Let’s say a year from now we have the system in place. What is the Walmart greeter doing differently? Or the usher at the movie theater?
The reason parking placards are effective is because we have a system in place to monitor and enforce them. Are we calling the cops to come and ask for a certificate because someone brought a dog into McDonald’s?
No, the private organization would ask for the certificate, and if it couldn’t be presented the person would be asked to leave their animal outside. If they refused, and the person proved belligerent, then the cops would be called (just as with any other customer that violated policy).
Obviously this requires changing the laws about questioning. Perhaps ironically, I don’t think staff should be allowed to ask what tasks the service animal is trained for. That’s no one’s business but the disabled person. They should only be allowed to ask for a valid certificate/license.
McDonalds could choose to enforce their policy strictly or not. Maybe a business doesn’t care about pets at all. Maybe they only care about excluding misbehaving animals. Maybe they want to be as strict as possible within the bounds of the law so as to minimize the burden on customers that don’t care to be around animals. Up to them.
So, you would be in favor of letting anyone park in the handicapped spot without any kind of proof, because being required to prove that one legitimately needs the spot is not the problem of the handicapped person?
While it might be something of a burden to require people who need those spots to prove it via obtaining informative license plates and placards, as far as I’m concerned, that’s just life, folks - suck it up.
The personal example I always use is my eyes - I have retinal degeneration and had premature and congenital cataracts, which have caused me significant expense, discomfort, and difficulty throughout life, ranging from needing extra-expensive eyeglasses to surgery to at times being barely able to walk outside my home unaided without stumbling.
In a perfect world, every single one of those inconveniences would have been paid for and mitigated by society, not by me.
But so what? We don’t live in a perfect world, and it’s just my bad luck to have been saddled with that particular set of problems. EVERYONE has some kind of problem, many more severe than what I faced, and EVERYONE has to take certain special steps to deal with their issues. Even in a world of universal health care and accommodation, that would have been the case for me. I would have gladly registered for a special card of exemption, if it could have afforded me special privileges that would have made my life easier when I was dealing with the worst of my eye health issues.
So from my point of view, requiring owners of trained service animals to prove that the animals are indeed certified is no big deal. We all gotta do certain things to address the problems we face. Therefore, I don’t feel that asking for certification is inappropriate.
Yes. Personal responsibility as best you can. Get information where you can. Learn what you need to or will have to do.
It’s not prudent to wait til it slaps you upside your head. Preparedness is best. As much as you can.
This is why I searched online. Looking for information on guide dogs. This is why I came across comfort/emotional support animals. This is why I took one for the team and paid to register a lovely but not qualified animal to see if there were any obstacles. I found out what I needed to know.
I’m smarter for it. I learned what I’ll need to do if it comes a time when I need this service. I’ve contacted Guide dogs for the blind. I’ve gotten loads of info from them. I’m on a future need list. I get regular mailings.
Now I feel safe. With my plain ol’dog laying in his dog bed. Opening one eye occasionally to see if I’m still here. Even with his fake registration he’s a cutie patootie.
He needed no specialized training for that!
I don’t think the issue is that business can’t tell if an animal is a trained service animal or not. Anecdotally we all seem to have observed cases where animals were obviously untrained, regular pets.
The issue is that businesses don’t want to deal with the hassle of enforcing a policy and particularly don’t want to call the cops. The Walmart greeter up-thread knew the cart of puppies weren’t service animals.
If my opinion is correct, then certifying service animals won’t make a difference.
No as I said up-thread, I’m fine with enforcing parking placards. There’s a system already in place and it works.
My issue isn’t moral; it’s pragmatic. I don’t think certifying service animals will solve any problems. The issue is businesses are not interested in enforcing a policy with or without certification.
Consider the OP: it’s clear that dog isn’t a service animal, but the company is ok with it being off-lead. And that’s a case where the employer has some leverage over an employee, unlike a restaurant over a customer.
But don’t you think the OP has a case? Since there’s no certification process, other than a letter from a doctor(which are insanely easy to get). And the certificate is worthless anyway. You might be disabled by emotional issues. The business surely doesn’t want to discriminate. I’m not sure, but I don’t think emotional issues are covered in ADA. I bet most people don’t know the answer to that.
I’m telling you I would fight it. The OPs emotional issues are at least as important as the dog owners. They should be heard.
The issue is that it’s currently illegal for them to enforce any kind of policy at all. The business can ask two specific questions, which the person can then lie about with no penalty*, and then… nothing. The man with the puppies went into the store because he knew there was nothing the store could legally do.
If, instead, there was a certificate or license, and the business had the right to reject customers in its absence, then they could choose to enforce the policy or not. Probably not all will–some businesses already welcome pets. But some will.
* Some states do appear to have laws against misrepresentation of a service animal. But this seems unlikely to be enforced except against repeat offenders. And there’s no Federal standard–except for airlines, which can ask for additional documentation (and for which misrepresentation is a Federal crime).
At the risk of un-derailing this thread, here’s an update.
I wrote back to the office manager and told them that I’m afraid of dogs and that I expected the dog to always be constrained. They said that they would talk to the owner to make sure that happens.
I went into the office. I only saw the dog once from an angle where the dog couldn’t see me. It was lying in a basket but was not constrained. It was wearing a small red vest which didn’t appear to say service dog or anything else. I decided to stay and work at the office. If the dog ever left that room (which I imagine must have happened at least once or twice) I didn’t know about it. No problems. The end.
