Would you count such calls from organizations that train and provide service dogs? Because one such organization has this to say:
I thought of this thread last night. We were at a favorite brewery, which is extremely dog friendly. Some nights there are a few dogs. Last night there were as many dogs as people (one woman had four papillons). We had Kizzy with us and she slept quietly at our feet. We brought Kizzy to the brewery when she was a puppy and it is still her “happy place”.
There was a Jack Russel Terrier wearing a vest. I looked closely to read what was on it, and it really made me laugh. The woman was a seamstress and made the vest herself. Embroidered on one side it proclaimed that the dog was a “working disservice dog” and you should leave her alone, lest she drown you in kisses. The dog was very well behaved.
Along with beer, most people were eating. How is it not a health department violation? Well, the brewery has no kitchen. Food comes from the food truck that parks out front. Cool work-around.
I don’t care if a place allows dogs in at the owner’s choice. I like dogs, have taken dogs to places that allow it. My late beloved Blackjack was a regular at my favorite bar but the bartenders would check with customers before he could come in. When the place was sold the new owner was under pressure to open the kitchen as required by law and didn’t want to risk a health code violation so he offered to put a fenced in area with a doghouse outside so Blackjack could continue to come. Unfortunately Blackjack was getting old and he couldn’t walk so well so I thanked him but said it was unnecessary. I certainly couldn’t blame him for following the law and protecting his business. There would have been no problem if someone brought a service dog in but he would have been in a tough spot if someone was trying to bring in a pet and insisting it was a service dog. A health inspector wouldn’t hesitate to cite him if they saw a dog that didn’t appear to be service dog there. The inspector would have no way to determine the dog’s status. He wouldn’t be the one who had to eject the dog and the owner would have little chance of appealing while his business was fined or shut down for a period.
A service dog must be trained by someone who could provide certification. It’s not an imposition on anyone to check the certification that would exist for a real service dog.
The brewery we were at last night is the other way around. Occasionally someone will come in and tell the bartender or owner they are dog afraid/allergic/whatever. They offer to sell them a six pack to go, but the dog(s) stay.
How would that be legal? The owner can’t prove or disprove that a dog is a service animal. If the customer claims that the dog is a service animal and it’s behaving, the owner can’t remove it. I can’t imagine that would hold up to a legal challenge.
A health inspector can’t verify if the dog is a service dog. They could cite the owner and place the burden on the owner to prove otherwise.
But the owner cannot legally do that, so I can’t see how that would hold up.
The owner could appeal to the health department. He would have find the customer some how and ask them tell the health department that they did have a service dog, but of course if it wasn’t a service dog that wouldn’t help even if the customer could be located.
Do you have any evidence that things are actually like this? It sounds unworkable.
That sounds like a very cool place to hang out.
Happy place, indeed.
I have phobias, not about dogs. But many things. I don’t expect the world to accommodate me and my idiosyncrasies and mental issues. I have environmental allergies occasionally. I don’t expect nature to quit pollinating cause I sneeze.
The OP, could, if they were truly dog-phobic and paralyzed with fear(not that said that) get a full hearing from HR about the dog in their office. They deserve it as much as the employee with the ESA dog. Because there’s no legal standard or official certification/licensing process there’s no other way to resolve the issue.
I get the idea, best to let it ride. Don’t rock the boat. But, then I worry about the next person with a dog problem. And the next.
We have a few times. It is to introduce integrity into the system so that people cannot game the system and take non-service dogs with them where not allowed and to enable people with disabilities to receive their rights under ADA since there is no longer the presumption that they are lying.
You’re wrong. CRS §24-34-804.
It is a petty offense under (2)(a) which falls under the criminal code as a civil infraction (I believe that is the same status as a traffic offense).
Punishment is under §18-1.3-503
The penalty for commission of a petty offense, upon conviction, is a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, imprisonment for not more than ten days in a county jail, or both.
Your forgot the end if the sentence which is against the business’ policy and the business’ right to conduct business in a non-discriminatory way in a manner that they see fit under the law. Effectively my desire to take (non-service) Mr. Mittens in the store with me should not trump the shop-keeper’s rights.
What’s your experience with the American legal system? Because in my experience, logic has no place in a court room.
Phrased this way it doesn’t sound like much of a problem. It sounds like the main issue is people are getting away with something and we want to stop it. It would be a stronger argument if those animals were misbehaving with some frequency.
If disabled groups were pushing for certification to restore integrity to the system that would be a stronger argument.
Airlines had a problem with non-service animals and they solved it without certification. I’d expect Walmart and McDonald’s could do the same, but they don’t want to. They want all their customers.
The OP makes a good case that non-service animals in the workplace could be better regulated. Fortunately there are existing government departments to support that without certification.
Did you see Kimstu’s post?
And that’s there choice. If I own a store, should I be allowed to keep non-service animals out if I so choose?
Yes, it’s a group that represents service animal trainers. Not a group that represents service animal users. As I said if service animal users want this, then that’s a strong argument.
I’ll accept this, for sure. But airlines are no longer required to accommodate emotional support animals, so accommodation of emotional support animals won’t be the cause of that problem anymore.
This puts something into focus that has been sort of an undercurrent. There are service dogs, emotional support dogs, and pets that people claim to be either of those, and there is ignorance about the law. There may also be some state laws that ought to be changed.
We’ve discussed what a service dog is.
Emotional support animals are pets for which the owner has received a prescription from a mental health professional in relation to a debilitating mental condition. Nothing else is required. But, the only federally required accommodations were housing nondiscrimination and travel accommodation. Airlines are no longer required to accommodate, and I think that probably should be extended to other forms of public transportation.
Federal law does not require any other accommodation. Emotional support animals don’t have a right to go anywhere else that pets can’t go. If state laws go further, I’d agree that that’s a problem.
People can relatively easily get emotional support animals letters. If the prescriber is a legitimate mental health professional, then the animal is a legitimate emotional support animal. But the only benefit of that under federal law is housing nondiscrimination.
People who get fake emotional support animal letters shouldn’t be getting to take pets anywhere that pets aren’t allowed anyway.
And finally, the example from the quote: even if emotional support animals don’t have to be accommodated anymore, the same thing that happened at the gate could still happen with a (smaller) pet. If it’s small enough to travel in an approved pet carrier, then it can be at the gate. There will always be irresponsible pet owners, unfortunately. I also would support changing laws about that scenario.
Doesn’t it have to actually be in the carrier? In which case, it’s not going to be attacking anybody.
The one time I flew with my small Rat Terrier, it was required to be in a carrier that fit under the seat in front of me. Vet certificate that she had Rabies vax. And I chose to have a sedative. Just in case. She could be a handful.
A flight attendant asked me about her mid flight. She said open the carrier and let her out awhile.
She ran up and down the aisle greeting everyone. Wagging her stubby tail.
No one complained. But it really wasn’t a smart thing to do. She could get really yappy when excited.
I got her back in the carrier. She wasn’t happy. I gave her that sedative and all was well, the rest of the flight.
Wow…when did this happen?
In today’s political and legal climate, I can’t imagine the airline allowing it, for fear of being sued.
Now,me, I love waggy tails…but lots of other people don’t.And in the claustrophobic confines of a flight…
Remember a movie a few years ago called “Snakes on a Plane” ?
On the plane, yes, I think so. But I don’t think it’s required at the gate. If it is, then it’s not enforced. I’ve seen small dogs on a leash at the gate regularly. And really it would be kind of cruel to make them be in the tiny crate if they don’t have to be.