If the possibility of being challenged (when one can easily verify their status) is harmful, why is the likelihood of getting “stinkeye” from shopowners who are not allowed to verify a dog handler’s status not harmful?
Why is it not harmful to all disabled that the next time someone suggests a program to benefit a disabled group, many voters will remember their level of satisfaction with this one?
How the heck did I enable one? My friend never said his dog was not allowed and he intended to get away with having it there by claiming it was a service dog. The police officer shut him down and sent him on his way, while I did not point out that there was no such thing as certification. Afterwards, I told him what a jerk move he had made. Did you want me to make a citizen’s arrest? Call the police officer’s supervisor and advise him to haul the dude to jail in spite of the cop being satisfied with him leaving? I think this was actually the last time I even saw him, since this was no isolated incident of bad behavior.
Well, if the person is blind, they won’t even have to perceive said stink-eye. And there is a big difference between someone looking at you funny and having to actually interact with them.
If someone is such an asshole that they against things to benefit disabled on the basis of their personal “satisfaction” levels, I don’t think this is going to sway them one way or another. We seldom actually get to vote on this stuff anyway. It’s our elected “representatives” that do so.
You are concerned about potential harm caused by backlash of fake service animals, but not providing any cites of actual harm happening yet. I am concerned about potential harm coming from a different angle if your suggestions are put in place. Can we at least wait for a problem to develop before trying to solve it?
Since he had committed a federal offense, you could have at least directly told the officer that your friend was lying about the dog and he might have gotten a citation.
Nice spot to clip your quote. The first article goes on to say:
"In terms of solving the dilemma, Tuttle doesn’t think any kind of legislation will work.
“They can write new laws, but there is no way to enforce them. We don’t have enough police to stop murders, much less stop people from hauling around pseudo service dogs,” he said."
Clearly Mr. Tuttle, an actual service dog user, does not support your ideas.
The other article is again, pure speculation of potential for future harm.
Same as your speculation of potential of further harm.
You mean, just like every claim you’ve made in this thread?
I already said that.
Why would I want to do that? The officer had no doubt he was lying, and dealt with it as he saw fit. Why is it up to me to critique his work?
So if we have two scenarios, each with some potential for causing future inconvenience, why not take the one that actually solves the existing problem?
Are you seriously suggesting that people entertain doubts about the service dogs used by the blind? If I am to take your objections seriously, I have to imagine you that you are proposing cases where service dogs are being used by people without obvious disabilities.
Otherwise, it feels to me that you are raising up a straw man.
I have been following this thread for the past couple days and finally decided to sign up and weigh in on it. As my name implies I am a service dog handler. I am also very much against certification and required identification.
There are many reasons why I think in actual practice it would be a terrible idea, the biggest reason being that most people calling for it want it to get rid of fake service dogs and the truth is it won’t fix that and most likely will make it worse. The other large group pushing for it is CCI and ADI, which is responsible for a lot of the articles linked in this thread saying it is such a huge problem. They want it because they want to push for only ADI certified service dogs are protected thereby creating a monopoly for their businesses, much as they have already done in one province in Canada and with the Veteran’s Admin.
You can’t compare disabled parking and service dogs, they are not the same. Driving and therefore parking is a privilege, public access is a right, it can only be removed by incarceration. Also disabled parking is a limited resource, there are only so many spots available at a specific location so someone parking there fraudulently is taking away a spot from someone that needs it. A fake service dog in a store does not take away the ability of someone with a legitimate service dog from entering the store.
Now, why wouldn’t required identification work? The most commonly suggested plan is to have a Doctor verify the need of a service dog much like what is needed for disabled parking. There is already a cottage industry of doctors that will meet with you via skype and prescribe an Emotional Support Animal for housing and airline travel, if you make that a requirement for service dogs you will have a lot of fakes that are now “official” and a lot of very rich doctors.
Why are there so many fakes, because businesses allow them. There was an article last fall about it being a problem in New York City, one of the examples was a guy that took his dog everywhere and had it in a vest with tags that read “Therapy Dog”. Therapy Dogs are not covered under the ADA and are not allowed anywhere that pets are not. He advertised that he was faking and never had a problem. I am very rarely asked by a business if he is a service dog, and have never been asked what tasks he is trained to perform in order to determine access, he is for an invisible disability. You also always see examples of the fakes behaving badly in those articles yet nothing is done about it when the business has the right to remove any dog service or fake if it behaves inappropriately. If businesses CHOOSE to not do what they are currently allowed to do to deal with fakes then take it up with them and stop trying to make it harder on the people that need these dogs.
Why aren’t all the people complaining about fakes and wanting this extra stuff for the disabled applying it to another problem. Why don’t we make it so that every business and place of public access has the right to inspect every person’s passport before allowing access, that would help fight all the illegal immigrants. I assume all of you would be for that too, right?
It would be possible to create a certification system without providing a monopoly to an already-existing organization. The fact that ADI wants to be the sole provider does not mean that we have to write the law that way.
It does if the fake service dogs attacks or otherwise interferes with the work of the real service dog. Fakes also inconvenience other people who are not disabled, as well as the businesses themselves, if they cause disruptions, piss on the floor, etc., etc.
This is a real problem, and is, in my opinion, one of the very few valid arguments against a certification scheme.
Marijuana is illegal in California, but you can purchase it for personal use with a medical marijuana card. I know people who have such cards and have no actual medical need for marijuana whatsoever. And there are doctors—i know of one in my own neighborhood—whose whole business model appears to be consultations for medical marijuana cards. If you’ve got 40 bucks, you’ve got a medical marijuana card.
If we were to require certification for service dogs, we would need to find a way to prevent, or at least minimize, this problem.
There is some validity to this, too. We, as consumers, should make clear to businesses that we want them to allow genuine service dogs, but also want them to keep out the fakes.
The problem is that, in the age of social media, bad publicity can harm a business even if they are in the right. One story, linked earlier in this thread, discussed a business that ejected a dog that was misbehaving, and that did not appear to qualify as an actual service dog. The owner of the dog took to Yelp and other social media to shame the business. Given the damage such publicity can do to a small business, it’s no wonder that most business owners don’t want to deal with the issue themselves.
And the law, as currently written, exacerbates the problem and makes it even harder for businesses, because it makes no requirement except a verbal confirmation by the very person who allegedly requires the accommodation. It’s all very well to say that the business owner can ask the two magic questions, but any pet owner with third-grade reading skills can easily answer those questions, whether or not their answers are actually true.
Here, let me show you.
“This is a dog that is required for a disability. This is a medical alert dog whose purpose is to alert me to the onset of a seizure.”
There. Pretty simple, huh? Both of those sentences are complete lies, but if you’re a business owner, what are you gonna do about it? There’s no way to confirm the lie, because the only authority accepted in such cases is the word of the dog owner.
The rest of your arguments, even when i disagree with them, at least have the merit of basic logic and rationality.
This one is simply asinine, and you should be embarrassed for even pretending that it’s relevant.
SD Handler, what are your qualifications? If the two acronyms you mentioned can’t fill the demand, how can they have a monopoly?
According to ADI’s website, they are not a single company but an coalition of organizations.
How will certification make the problem worse?
Businesses have to allow the fakes as they are constrained from asking questions that would determine if the dog is a fake.
If there’s a placard, at least there’s a number that can be reported or queried if needed.
Most people are not aware that Therapy Dogs are not covered by the ADA or think it’s a subset of Service Dog.
Even if a business removes a fake for bad behavior, that doesn’t solve the problem when the next one comes in. That is, until that one acts up and gets removed.
The businesses have no real way of determining if a service dog is fake or not.
Some people don’t want any dogs anywhere ever, including service dogs. A phobia, allergy, or other such objection do not disappear because an animal is in service. Why arm these people with a legal way to discourage the animal?
What recourse do I have when a fake bites me? Sue the business owner? Who do you think is going to stop an unknown person with a vicious dog? The cop that shows up 15 minutes later? Well, I could but if the handicapped person and their service dog were the ones attacked & their dog was killed, should they expect the other people to protect them or hold the bad guy & his rather mean dog?
All rather unlikely occurrences.
Is this the only area that should be wide open so the challenged do not have to show a license? Do they go to a different cafe every night? Or grocery store? They always go where they have never been before? Most of the challenged people are creatures of habit. Heck, I am seldom asked for ID in a big Wall*Mart because I go there regularly. People with challenges don’t do that nor are they remembered when they do go many times & are always asked for ID? Even in a big store, they would be remembered by trip three I would bet. The dog is so unmemorable that no one can remember it either. Boy, that is some stealth dog
Even really young looking people who go the the same nightclub will not be questioned by the bouncer after the first time unless the are checking every bodies for some reason, like a law.
With all the options I see up thread, I think the total extra imposition on the challenged would be much less a hassle than many other things that they have put up with.
It is not fair, well:
The world is round,
It is not fair,
It is just round.
And never will be, even in just one state, county, city, etc…
I don’t like it either but I do live in it and I did not get the pain free, trouble free life I deserve.
Question:
Does anybody have any stats on how many people who can not be easily identified as challenged but need a dog are there compared to the total number that need a service dog?
( Not going to count PTSD because IMO they are not a service dog although we need many more for those people. )
Do you know what primary and secondary enforcement are in regard to seatbelt laws? All states have seatbelt laws, but some states have primary enforcement, and some have secondary enforcement. In secondary enforcement states, you can’t be stopped just because an officer thinks you aren’t wearing your belt. You can be ticketed for the offense only if you are stopped for something else, and happen not to have your belt on. Not having your dog’s tag, or papers, or whatever proof people decide on can be a matter of secondary enforcement-- in other words, unless the dog does something that causes a problem in the first place, there’s no reason to ask for proof. If a person’s fake dog happens to be perfectly behaved, then there’s no problem. The only people who get asked are the people whose dogs are problems.
I really think that once word gets around that there is some kind of enforcement for service dogs that don’t act like service dogs, it will cut down on the number of fakes.
I’m not seeing any evidence of disabled people with service animals clamoring for legislation requiring certification and being forced to carry mandatory proof. I’m sure there is a non-zero number of such people, since why would they all agree about anything, but doesn’t it seem a bit suspicious if the supposed intention is to protect them? Why are so many opposed? Do they just not know what’s good for them?