I was watching a situation unfold that might have turned ugly…but, in the end, nothing happened.
Someone had a service dog, in a facility that said, “No animals other than Service animals.” Okay…
Except someone called security, and made a fuss. The guy with the dog said that, according to the law establishing these things, he didn’t have to show any ID on his animal.
Is that correct? A store owner, for instance, is totally obliged to take anyone’s word for it? “Yes, this is a service dog.” The owner can’t say, “Show me papers?”
I can see how this could be awkward, but the precedent is that people getting special exemptions do have to demonstrate their eligibility. Imagine if anyone could park in a handicapped parking space, without having to display a placard or permit! It would make the concept of the special parking space entirely meaningless!
ETA: California, if it matters by state, but the guy said it was a matter of Federal law.
From a US Department of Justice webpage on service animals: “When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.”
The previous two posters have weighed in on the legal issue.
As a matter of principle, i agree with you about the issue of proving the need for a service animal. As it stands, there is basically no way for anyone to determine whether a person’s service animal is genuine, or just some pet that they don’t want to leave at home.
There’s no reason that a system of identification would have to identify a person’s specific disability. Disabled parking permits don’t make any such identification; they simply note that the owner of the vehicle has been approved by the appropriate authorities to use disabled parking spaces. I think we need a similar registration system for service animals. It seems to me that people who genuinely need service animals should support this type of registration, as it would prevent selfish pet owners from gaming the system.
Both runner pat and Dewey Finn are referring to a change in the ADA which took effect in March 2011, probably the first significant change to the service animal section since the first went into effect in 1991. Prior to this change, practically any animal could be called a “service animal.”
Since not all dog breeds are currently trained and recognized as “service animals,” nor able to function as a service animal with some human “needs,” the law effectively eliminated small, “yap, yap,” or purse dogs, from begin called a service animal.
The change still doesn’t really fix the problem, because as long as the owner of the dog gives a plausible explanation of the dog’s function, there’s pretty much nothing that anyone can do about it.
This puzzles me. Dogs trained to be aides to the deaf are usually small breeds (at least in the UK) as their owners are often elderly and not up to exercising a larger animal and indeed terriers seem to be favoured in any case.
Thank you very, much, runner pat and Dewey Finn, for pointing me to the law. That’s what I wanted to know, and I’m glad to know it. As I said, the incident in question never came to a crisis, but it could have, and I am better off knowing the facts.
mhendo: I quite agree. A little license tag on the animal, or a certificate carried by the owner, would reduce uncertainty, and, at a fairly minimal level of loss of privacy, prevent a particular odious kind of fraud. As you say, it wouldn’t identify the specific need for the animal, just assure everyone that it is legitimate.
Duckster: interestingly enough, the dog was, in fact, very tiny! I didn’t ever actually measure it, but I’d say it was about 12 inches from muzzle to tuchis, with a (cute!) 3 inch tail behind. VERY well behaved, and never, ever, so much as a single yap. I give the owner full credit for the dog’s wholly proper behavior.
I wish I could go into more details, as they are, if not edifying, actually very amusing, but that could serve to identify the individuals, and I’ve already risked doing that. Thank you for answering my question!
Wrong! We once attended an event at a recognized assistance dog school. There was a Pug, a couple of Chihuahuas, Poodles, and a Cavalier King Charles. Later we met another CKC from the program. Springtime is rightly confused because here to small dogs frequently are trained for the hearing impaired, diabetic, seizure prone, and maybe some other things they can do. I was surprised to learn they used so many small dogs, but it makes all the sense in the world. Many of the impaired have employment problems, ADA or no ADA. Small dogs fit in small apartments better, eat less, and live longer.
Under the current law, you can obtain any dog you want and once it is trained to preform 2 tasks as an accommodation to your impairment, it is a service dog and you have the right to take it to any public place you choose. You can be asked to demonstrate its tasks.
I think Denver’s ban on pit bulls as service dogs is still in the courts, but that they will eventually lose.
There are some other things the ADA doesn’t cover. Emotional support animals have different rules. Service dogs in training are covered by a patchwork of state and local laws, as are the puppies we foster. Also, most service dog schools provide their graduates with identification and some states certify service dogs. Identification and certification are touchy subjects. Food establishments have a very narrow line to walk with punishments for both letting one dog in and not letting another in.
Note, the 2011 law banned all none dogs except existing guide horses. State laws may still permit other animals. I helped my local health department figure out a ‘‘service parrot’’.