I’m afraid you’ll have to show me where there are “so many” opposed. You say that you haven’t seen evidence of disabled people clamoring for legislation, and yet you now claim that many of them are opposed without providing any evidence whatsoever.
So when one umbrella group dealing with the disabled and their service animals says that fake service dogs are a problem, you hand-wave it away, but when another umbrella group supports your position, that is supposed to close the debate?
Nice consistent set of criteria you’ve got there.
You got the cite you asked for. All organizations are not equal, and I have not “hand-waved” anything away.
Also, there’s Marv Tuttle, mentioned in post #86, and a service dog handler participating right in this thread. Not to mention that the wording of the ADA, which did not come about by magic, but because of efforts of disabled advocates, is self-evident. It is written to not require ID or certification, and it is written that way on purpose to protect disabled people’s right to privacy and the right to live their lives as normally as possible.
Maybe you should go spend the day “helping” elderly folks across the street regardless of their wishes.
Then it was a major mistake. The parking abuse should have been a tip-off that more control would be needed.
And since when does a dog require privacy?
ETA: And SD Handler never came back to answer the questions that were put despite his activity showing he was lurking.
Yes, I’m sure YOU know better. Why don’t you take a red pen to the Constitution and fix it up for us too? If only there was a step after any federal law passes where they send it to you to make improvements.
The disabled person is the one that deserves for their desire for privacy to be protected, just like people of all abilities.
SDHandler is under no obligation to answer anyone’s questions. He posted and thus seems likely to exist, and directly does not support certification and identification requirements. There are direct quotes from disabled animal handlers voicing their opposition to your proposed requirements. If disabled people want these changes, I’m sure some will speak up publicly and request them, and I’m sure some do and that some have come forward and said so. But so far, not enough to get it changed, which is telling. In general, it does not have the support of actual disabled animal handlers that you think it should.
Are you sure these animal handlers aren’t some of these scumbags?
Woman Accused Of Selling Untrained Service Dogs Stops Business
Service Dog Organization Accused Of Selling Untrained Dogs
And a federal law is not the same as the Constitution.
Yes, I am sure they are not.
And I’m saying you should ALSO correct and improve the Constitution, in ADDITION to any federal laws that you would like to change, not that they are the same thing. But I guess if it’s just the federal laws you are interested in “correcting” at least it’s a start. Grab your red crayon and get busy. I can’t wait to see how awesome it’s going to be in America after you get done. It’s about time someone stepped up and got this stuff under sensible control.
A poorly trained or phony service dog is a health and safety concern.
A properly trained dog will not lunge at or threaten other people, will not attack and kill other dogs, will not piss or shit in a store or restaurant, will not jump on other patrons or try to take food off plates.
All of these things have happened with fake service dogs and it has and will have an impact on the mobility of legitimate owners.
Certifying a service dog will not impact the privacy of the disabled owner as it’s already legal to ask what tasks the dog is trained for. This would simply verify that it’s a true service dog.
Yep, keep telling yourself that stuff I guess. Screw the actual disabled people who care about their own privacy and rights, because YOU know best.
Did you finish up your law corrections already? Utopia, here we come!
Exactly.
This is the fundamental silliness (or, at least, one of them) at the heart of AnaMen’a argument.
In Oregon they can only be dogs or miniature horses. Companion/calming animals are not allowed–they have to provide a physical service.
Running Coach, you’re right I have continued to follow this thread but did not feel the need to respond again. Mhendo disagrees but acknowledged the validity of arguments against certification. I have taken part in this discussion many many times over the past few years and that response is rare, usually most are set in their opinion and refuse to see the other side, so I was happy to have had a good exchange and move on. He didn’t like my apples to apples comparison to show non SD handlers what they are asking of service dog handlers, oh well can’t win them all.
As for your post I didn’t feel that needed a response but since you asked here you go.
SD Handler, you seem to have a problem with making sure that only trained dogs are available.
Did you see the stories I linked to of phony trainers preying on the disabled? How can anyone be sure they’re getting a trained dog and not getting scammed?
How about the service dog that was killed by a phony? That’s acceptable?
I have a problem with taking service dogs out of the hands of those that need them.
You mean your apples to headphones comparison, in which you suggested that asking for evidence that a dog is properly trained is equivalent to asking for evidence of citizenship?
I started this thread and do not like the direction it’s going.
Can I block/tune out people on here?
There is an Ignore List. To find it, go to “User CP” at the top left of the screen. You will then see a list of options on the left of the screen, including “Edit Ignore List.” You can go in there and add names.
Note, however, that you’re not allowed to say who is on your Ignore List unless you’re in the BBQ Pit forum of the SDMB.
As for this thread, you didn’t exactly start the thread with a very coherent post. Here’s the sum total of your OP:
Some brilliant, incisive analysis there, with some really meaty and pertinent information, and a good effort to clearly outline the direction that you wanted the thread to go!
In case you missed it, that was sarcastic.
Serious advice: if you want to set the tone for a thread, put some goddam effort into the OP.
User CP (top of page in the blue menu bar)>Edit Ignore List You need to enter the usernames manually.
ETA: I haz a wpm fail.
Yes,I was a good bit fuzzy on that. Sorry… I will blame the meds I was on. Fir a while I could not talk and it seems to have spilled over into my typing(and I never could spell)