Just where should the line for service animals be drawn?

Great Debates
1

Recently there was a thread in the Pit about a girl suing to get her ferret declared a service animal, to allow her to cope with her anxiety disorder. The general consensus had been that while the ferret may well have been of material benefit to her, it also didn’t translate well to a university environment. Now, today, I saw this article about a township trying to enforce zoning laws to keep goats out of a residential development.

On the one hand, I have to admit I can see why the neighbors are worried. Goats are considered livestock, and as such simply their presence has the potential to reduce the property values in the development.

On the other hand, considering the size of the menagerie that the family described in the article has - I’m not sure that any two more animals could do any more damage than the zoo already there.

And, finally - while I don’t think that mental health assist animals need to be allowed into the classroom, or the dorms, or even restaurants, I can see a lot more justification to allowing a non-standard animal to be used as a service animal in privately owned home. And, frankly, I’m a bit perplexed at the willingness of the township to allow pot-bellied pigs as pets, but not goats. I grant that a goat is larger than a pot-bellied pig, but only by about a factor of 50% IIRC. And goats do not exceed the size of such dogs as Newfies or Great Danes. I’m not even sure that a goat will produce more waste than a dog of the same size.

A quick look at the website’s poll about the situation shows that there’s about a 3:1 response in favor of the family winning their suit. I suspect, however, this is very much a NIMBY issue: “Goats are fine in other people’s neighborhoods. Just not mine.” I’ll admit I may be doing people a disservice with that estimate, though.

The question I’d like to see debated here, with arguments pro and con, would be: To what extent should communities make adjustments for people using animals, even non-standard pet animals, for mental health assist animals?

For myself, as long as the animal in question isn’t going to be more onerous to the surrounding community than other allowed animals, there should be no question. So I do think that the family should be able to keep their goats. Things get trickier however, when you start looking at other things that have been brought to court for mental health assist animals: I remember at least one case of a tenant suing to be allowed to have a medium sized dog in his no-pets apartment because it helped him with his depression. AIUI, a landlord has to make accomodations for a seeing eye or hearing ear dog. I don’t know if it’s fair to make the same requirements apply for a dog that just ( :eek: ) provides someone severly depressed with a reason to go on living. Or less drastically, helps them find the will and motivation to go outside every day.

I can’t offer a more concrete view of my opinion than that, since it’s still not formed.

I look forward to seeing what other Dopers have to say about this issue.

2

Your title and the cited article are two different things. Service animals are not defined as any animal someone thinks helps, but very carefully trained animals - trained to fit into society and live up to the privilege of going places other animals do by not causing disruptions. Neither the ferret or goat are service animals, no more than the little old lady’s doted on cat. Half of guide dogs flunk out, and this is after being carefully bred for desired characteristics. So really my response to your title is that the definition of service animal has to be kept clear, and non-service animals not be confused with service animals.

The goat appears to be a pet. Has a doctor certified that the goat helps, or is this the mother’s opinion? I’d tend to say that with a certified medical need, the goat should stay given that the family take steps to prevent odor and noise. It sems to me, though, that all their animals show that they like animals a lot, and couldn’t arrange for the goat to stay somewhere appropriate and get visited frequently. One dog and one goat would make me believe it was the ADHD - many animals make me think its the animals.

3

I’m well aware of the stats you’ve mentioned and the differences in training between the currently recognized service animals, and what appears to be the case with the goats mentioned here. I made my title as general as possible, in part because I wasn’t sure I’d be able to fit “Mental Health Assist Animal” in with anything else in the title space. And I mentioned service animals in the title because changes in a number of public laws have been made to accomodate them. Should other changes be considered for different needs, too?

I think it is possible to consider whether a less well-trained animal can be granted a status, not identical to that currently accorded to seeing eye dogs, but similar in some regards - making accomodations for residential use, etc. It is rather well-known that most any pet can afford mental health benefits to patients. Unless you insist on cites, I’m going to take that as axiomatic. If a person’s need is great enough (At this time I have no idea where I’d draw the line there: Someone who’s been on suicide watch, yes; Someone who just can’t find the energy to take showers daily, possibly; Someone who just is bummed out on a routine basis, I don’t think so.) shouldn’t there be some accomodations that can be made?

I’m certainly not adamant on this. Just wondering if you’ll share your views.

4

Trained service animals aren’t limited to seeing-eye dogs. Why would you have an objection to a trained service animal for mental health?

5

I’m certainly not objecting to animals other than dogs becoming service animals. We actually thought a bit about getting a pot bellied pig, but didn’t because they’re too smart (and live a long time.) My issue is with someone getting a ferret, getting a certificate from some PO Box (as documented in the other thread) and calling it a service animal. If a goat can be trained, I’ve no problem with treating it like any other service animal.

I believe that there are already dogs used as companion dogs, for mental health. Some guide dogs that get career changed for not being able to do some of the tasks needed for a blind companion become such.

It’s really the difference between a trained animal and a pet.

6

What exactly can a service animal do for a mentally ill person? I know there are dogs that have been trained to detect psychotic episodes or panic attacks and summon help, and that’s a helpful (if not essential… remember, plenty of blind folks get by okay without dogs) service, but many of these animals (including these goats) do nothing that a regular pet couldn’t do. And if they’re pets, and these MI people are asking for the rules to be changed, then they’re asking for special treatment and as someone with “issues” myself I feel pretty ashamed about that.

Also, mental disorders are easy to fake. Someone who desperately wants a pet might not be above asking their doctor for a phony recommendation. Until the training and registration of mental health service animals is standardized and regulated there will be lots of people getting away with things they shouldn’t be getting away with, using mental illness as a code word for entitlement-ism and spoiled brattery. And well, I think that sucks.

7

I was reading “Ranger Rick” in a waiting room and a blind woman has a seeing-eye pony.

Googling, I found http://www.guidehorse.org/, so I’m not just crazy.

My point? Well, if I have one it’s that animals can be trained in surprising ways.