Blind and Visually Impaired Community
↑
7
↓
Requiring ID for service dogs. (self.Blind)
submitted by CarolinaKiwi
Hello r/blind! So I wanted to reach out and ask your opinion on a federal ID for service dogs. In my hometown of Asheville, North Carolina, we have a problem with people passing their pets off as service animals. Part of it is we have a huge tourism industry so tourists come to town and bring their pets and try to pass them off as service animals to avoid paying pet cleaning fees in hotels, or so that they can take their pets into restaurants. The other part is we’re a very outdoorsy town and everyone here seems to be a dog lover and wants to take their dogs everywhere.
My step-dad is completely blind from a congenital progressive y chromosomal disorder and has relied on a guide dog for thirty years to help him safely navigate, and just generally exist, in the world. Through him I have learned about the many issues blind people have with their service dogs that come from people parading their pooches in places they shouldn’t, buying fake service dog vests, etc.
There is a lively discussion on our hometown subreddit related to this. A number of people have brought up the idea of requiring a federal ID for service dogs to alleviate the problem of fake service dogs. I have argued that in doing so, an unnecessary burden is being placed on disabled people who are already overburdened navigating the world. I think the concept of having to show proof of a disability anytime you walk into a public business is inappropriate, inhumane, and generally shitty for everyone. I personally would prefer to go after the people with the fake vests, and make it illegal to falsely present an untrained pet as a service animal.
I know how I feel about this, and I know how my step-dad feels about this, but I was interested in what you think. Do you think it would be easier for everyone to have to present a federal ID for your guide dog? Do the benefits outweigh the reward?
Thank you in advance for your thoughts.
My step-dad is completely blind from a congenital progressive y chromosomal disorder and has relied on a guide dog for thirty years to help him safely navigate, and just generally exist, in the world. Through him I have learned about the many issues blind people have with their service dogs that come from people parading their pooches in places they shouldn’t, buying fake service dog vests, etc.
There is a lively discussion on our hometown subreddit related to this. A number of people have brought up the idea of requiring a federal ID for service dogs to alleviate the problem of fake service dogs. I have argued that in doing so, an unnecessary burden is being placed on disabled people who are already overburdened navigating the world. I think the concept of having to show proof of a disability anytime you walk into a public business is inappropriate, inhumane, and generally shitty for everyone. I personally would prefer to go after the people with the fake vests, and make it illegal to falsely present an untrained pet as a service animal.
I know how I feel about this, and I know how my step-dad feels about this, but I was interested in what you think. Do you think it would be easier for everyone to have to present a federal ID for your guide dog? Do the benefits outweigh the reward?
Thank you in advance for your thoughts.
PawtismSpeaks 8 points 4y ago
First, let me clarify that I am not blind. However, I am a service dog handler (for other disabilities). I’m personally fairly torn on the issue. On one hand, an ID system would be useful for dealing with the fakes. On the other, are the points that you made (wheelchair users don’t need an ID to prove that they need a wheelchair, nor should they). In the end, I think it comes down to the practicality of it all.
An ID system really wouldn’t work. Not and still allow owner training, which they pretty much have to because of not enough program dogs/trainers. I mean what are you going to do? Flash lights at an epileptic and see if their dog alerts before they have a seizure? That would never fly. At best they could verify a disability and do a public access test. The rest they’d still have to take the handlers word on (and that’s exactly what some countries do for their “IDs”, such as Canada, not that it’s actually required there anyway).
People can and do lie to get those IDs even. Any system where you are effectively taking the word of the handler to get the ID is going to have people lying sometimes. There isn’t much difference between someone lying to a business or lying to an ID board.
The only positive I could see coming out of an ID system is that at least you would know the dog was trained well enough to pass a public access test. However, if business were to enforce what they are legally allowed to (exclude dogs that are misbehaving), the much of that problem would solve itself.
So, in the end, I’m still fairly torn on the idea, but I’m certainly not in the “ID will fix everything” camp because it won’t. People not being A holes and lying would fix it, but alas, humanity hasn’t gone extinct yet (give us time).
An ID system really wouldn’t work. Not and still allow owner training, which they pretty much have to because of not enough program dogs/trainers. I mean what are you going to do? Flash lights at an epileptic and see if their dog alerts before they have a seizure? That would never fly. At best they could verify a disability and do a public access test. The rest they’d still have to take the handlers word on (and that’s exactly what some countries do for their “IDs”, such as Canada, not that it’s actually required there anyway).
People can and do lie to get those IDs even. Any system where you are effectively taking the word of the handler to get the ID is going to have people lying sometimes. There isn’t much difference between someone lying to a business or lying to an ID board.
The only positive I could see coming out of an ID system is that at least you would know the dog was trained well enough to pass a public access test. However, if business were to enforce what they are legally allowed to (exclude dogs that are misbehaving), the much of that problem would solve itself.
So, in the end, I’m still fairly torn on the idea, but I’m certainly not in the “ID will fix everything” camp because it won’t. People not being A holes and lying would fix it, but alas, humanity hasn’t gone extinct yet (give us time).
blind_devotion08 5 points 4y ago
I feel much the same way. I had a service dog for 8 years, and more than once did I find myself wishing I could just flash a card from the USDOJ to get people to back off, but the convenience isn't worth screwing over self-trainers and becoming the one minority group that has to carry "proof" of membership.
KillerLag 2 points 4y ago
I feel the same way as well (O&M instructor in Canada). I've encountered people with dogs that were clearly A) not trained and B) had non-standard harnesses and equipment. One even showed me a fake ID which said "CNIB Guide Dog", a few years before CNIB started their guide dog school even (It was also badly printed and very pixelated).
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
I feel the same way as well (O&M instructor in Canada). I've encountered people with dogs that were clearly A) not trained and B) had non-standard harnesses and equipment. One even showed me a fake ID which said "CNIB Guide Dog", a few years before CNIB started their guide dog school even (It was also badly printed and very pixelated).
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
I feel the same way as well (O&M instructor in Canada). I've encountered people with dogs that were clearly A) not trained and B) had non-standard harnesses and equipment. One even showed me a fake ID which said "CNIB Guide Dog", a few years before CNIB started their guide dog school even (It was also badly printed and very pixelated).
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
I feel the same way as well (O&M instructor in Canada). I've encountered people with dogs that were clearly A) not trained and B) had non-standard harnesses and equipment. One even showed me a fake ID which said "CNIB Guide Dog", a few years before CNIB started their guide dog school even (It was also badly printed and very pixelated).
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
I feel the same way as well (O&M instructor in Canada). I've encountered people with dogs that were clearly A) not trained and B) had non-standard harnesses and equipment. One even showed me a fake ID which said "CNIB Guide Dog", a few years before CNIB started their guide dog school even (It was also badly printed and very pixelated).
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
I feel the same way as well (O&M instructor in Canada). I've encountered people with dogs that were clearly A) not trained and B) had non-standard harnesses and equipment. One even showed me a fake ID which said "CNIB Guide Dog", a few years before CNIB started their guide dog school even (It was also badly printed and very pixelated).
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
I feel the same way as well (O&M instructor in Canada). I've encountered people with dogs that were clearly A) not trained and B) had non-standard harnesses and equipment. One even showed me a fake ID which said "CNIB Guide Dog", a few years before CNIB started their guide dog school even (It was also badly printed and very pixelated).
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
I feel the same way as well (O&M instructor in Canada). I've encountered people with dogs that were clearly A) not trained and B) had non-standard harnesses and equipment. One even showed me a fake ID which said "CNIB Guide Dog", a few years before CNIB started their guide dog school even (It was also badly printed and very pixelated).
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
I feel the same way as well (O&M instructor in Canada). I've encountered people with dogs that were clearly A) not trained and B) had non-standard harnesses and equipment. One even showed me a fake ID which said "CNIB Guide Dog", a few years before CNIB started their guide dog school even (It was also badly printed and very pixelated).
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
I feel the same way as well (O&M instructor in Canada). I've encountered people with dogs that were clearly A) not trained and B) had non-standard harnesses and equipment. One even showed me a fake ID which said "CNIB Guide Dog", a few years before CNIB started their guide dog school even (It was also badly printed and very pixelated).
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
I feel the same way as well (O&M instructor in Canada). I've encountered people with dogs that were clearly A) not trained and B) had non-standard harnesses and equipment. One even showed me a fake ID which said "CNIB Guide Dog", a few years before CNIB started their guide dog school even (It was also badly printed and very pixelated).
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
Personally, I've found if most owners are attentive enough to keep their pets under control, then it isn't really an issue. The big issue is when people don't control their animals and let them run amok.
bleeblat 4 points 4y ago
The best we can do at this point is call the assholes out! The last thing completely blind people like myself need is another stupid piece of plastic in a wallet that we don't know what it is, that we'd have to constantly pull out because of idiots. Most of the financial system is inaccessible, and several other systems as well, because of stupid idiots trying to defraud everyone. We can't be paranoid as a society, because that's not going to help. Security should be getting less, instead of more! Every single law, particularly when it involves accessibility, is designed to protect the criminals. An ID is easier to fake than a service dog, so this solves nothing. The general trend toward trading freedoms for fear and fake, and useless surveillance is not helping anyone. I have to fill in a form to get my bank to fill in a form, to fill in a form to fill in my taxes, because none of it is brailled, and I did not learn handwriting, because I don't read print, so I'm constantly running into trouble with several things in society. Touch screens are also fairly evil. And then there is artificial intelligence that is designed for someone other than me, so all service dog ID is doing is just adding more paranoia to an already paranoid society! Stop it! I had used an expired government ID in at least 6 places or more over a period of a year, and nobody told me it was expired! So would they even check a dog ID at all? A better place to crack down would be the people making replica dog uniforms or harnesses. But I've also had salespeople fail to notice the "guide dogs for the blind" printed on my dog's harness frequently. So I'm not sure there's much that can be done accept taking the assholes to task when you find them.
CarolinaKiwi [OP] 1 points 4y ago
That’s pretty similar to my step-dad’s experience.
The only solution I’ve been able to come up with is:
1. Make it illegal to sell any kind of fake service animal accessories. Have the guide dog foundations be the sole source of any kind of vests, badges, etc. Better to put money in their pockets than some shady website.
2. Have a National service animal registry, and make it illegal to claim a dog is a service animal when it is not. This would not be so that handlers can prove their dog’s legitimacy to business operators, rather so that law enforcement could verify a dog suspected of being passed off as a service animal.
Now, I don’t mean for the police to stop blind people every time they see one walking with a guide dog and do a check, that would be even worse. But you could have task forces that would go into downtown areas a few times a month and do some checks. After it starts getting on the news that people are being handcuffed and charged with misdemeanors with large fines for lying about their dogs, I imagine a lot of people would stop doing it.
The only solution I’ve been able to come up with is:
1. Make it illegal to sell any kind of fake service animal accessories. Have the guide dog foundations be the sole source of any kind of vests, badges, etc. Better to put money in their pockets than some shady website.
2. Have a National service animal registry, and make it illegal to claim a dog is a service animal when it is not. This would not be so that handlers can prove their dog’s legitimacy to business operators, rather so that law enforcement could verify a dog suspected of being passed off as a service animal.
Now, I don’t mean for the police to stop blind people every time they see one walking with a guide dog and do a check, that would be even worse. But you could have task forces that would go into downtown areas a few times a month and do some checks. After it starts getting on the news that people are being handcuffed and charged with misdemeanors with large fines for lying about their dogs, I imagine a lot of people would stop doing it.
KillerLag 3 points 4y ago
Unfortunately, making it illegal to sell fake service animal accessories wouldn't realistically work. You can order it on-line from another country, and customs likely wouldn't stop it unless it became a massive federal law or something.
CarolinaKiwi [OP] 1 points 4y ago
I don’t think there is any one silver bullet. I think if we can succeed in greatly reducing the problem, it’ll be more like a death of a thousand cuts thing
KillerLag 2 points 4y ago
True enough. It is often implementation of ideas that cause the issues. I wonder if there is a lobby group for something like this?
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
Unfortunately, making it illegal to sell fake service animal accessories wouldn't realistically work. You can order it on-line from another country, and customs likely wouldn't stop it unless it became a massive federal law or something.
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
Unfortunately, making it illegal to sell fake service animal accessories wouldn't realistically work. You can order it on-line from another country, and customs likely wouldn't stop it unless it became a massive federal law or something.
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
Unfortunately, making it illegal to sell fake service animal accessories wouldn't realistically work. You can order it on-line from another country, and customs likely wouldn't stop it unless it became a massive federal law or something.
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
Unfortunately, making it illegal to sell fake service animal accessories wouldn't realistically work. You can order it on-line from another country, and customs likely wouldn't stop it unless it became a massive federal law or something.
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
Unfortunately, making it illegal to sell fake service animal accessories wouldn't realistically work. You can order it on-line from another country, and customs likely wouldn't stop it unless it became a massive federal law or something.
KillerLag 1 points 4y ago
Unfortunately, making it illegal to sell fake service animal accessories wouldn't realistically work. You can order it on-line from another country, and customs likely wouldn't stop it unless it became a massive federal law or something.
CloudyBeep 2 points 4y ago
In the US, you are allowed to ask two very useful questions if you want to verify whether a dog is a service dog: "Is that dog a service dog?" and if the answer is yes, then "What functions has it been trained to perform?" If a dog is not a service dog and thus has not been trained to form functions to assist its handler to mitigate the effects of their disability, it can lawfully be refused entry into facilities where dogs are not welcome.
CarolinaKiwi [OP] 2 points 4y ago
Absolutely, but that’s not the issue at question. Most people are uncomfortable asking questions which ultimately are designed to prove or disprove a disability, and rightfully so. In that space, people have found an opening to cheat the system and exploit the reticence of people to ask the questions. What’s the solution?
CloudyBeep 1 points 4y ago
If a person is unwilling to ask two very simple closed questions which have two very simple answers, they should consider allowing all animals into their place of business. Asking those questions is neither discriminatory nor burdensome.
CarolinaKiwi [OP] 1 points 4y ago
The issue is that the person with the animal can just lie and there is nothing the operator can do about it. Would you be in favor of a federal ID card? Do you think this is a non-issue?
CloudyBeep 1 points 4y ago
Workers in stores and the like need to learn that they can refuse dogs where the owner cannot explain a function the dog has been trained to perform. For example, "My dog makes me feel calm" would be unacceptable, but "My dog has been trained to perform [specific behavior] when it detects that I am going to have a panic attack" would be acceptable.
I am opposed to ID because 1) it will become too easy for non-service dog handlers to obtain illegitimate documentation; and 2) the vast majority of dog refusals into buildings that have sparked media attention were because the owner failed to state a function the dog has been trained to perform—you would think that people trying to abuse the system would know more about service dog training, but this is not the case.
I am very glad that this problem is localised to only the US and Canada, countries I don't live in.
I am opposed to ID because 1) it will become too easy for non-service dog handlers to obtain illegitimate documentation; and 2) the vast majority of dog refusals into buildings that have sparked media attention were because the owner failed to state a function the dog has been trained to perform—you would think that people trying to abuse the system would know more about service dog training, but this is not the case.
I am very glad that this problem is localised to only the US and Canada, countries I don't live in.
CloudyBeep 1 points 4y ago
Workers in stores and the like need to learn that they can refuse dogs where the owner cannot explain a function the dog has been trained to perform. For example, "My dog makes me feel calm" would be unacceptable, but "My dog has been trained to perform [specific behavior] when it detects that I am going to have a panic attack" would be acceptable.
I am opposed to ID because 1) it will become too easy for non-service dog handlers to obtain illegitimate documentation; and 2) the vast majority of dog refusals into buildings that have sparked media attention were because the owner failed to state a function the dog has been trained to perform—you would think that people trying to abuse the system would know more about service dog training, but this is not the case.
I am very glad that this problem is localised to only the US and Canada, countries I don't live in.
I am opposed to ID because 1) it will become too easy for non-service dog handlers to obtain illegitimate documentation; and 2) the vast majority of dog refusals into buildings that have sparked media attention were because the owner failed to state a function the dog has been trained to perform—you would think that people trying to abuse the system would know more about service dog training, but this is not the case.
I am very glad that this problem is localised to only the US and Canada, countries I don't live in.
CloudyBeep 1 points 4y ago
Workers in stores and the like need to learn that they can refuse dogs where the owner cannot explain a function the dog has been trained to perform. For example, "My dog makes me feel calm" would be unacceptable, but "My dog has been trained to perform [specific behavior] when it detects that I am going to have a panic attack" would be acceptable.
I am opposed to ID because 1) it will become too easy for non-service dog handlers to obtain illegitimate documentation; and 2) the vast majority of dog refusals into buildings that have sparked media attention were because the owner failed to state a function the dog has been trained to perform—you would think that people trying to abuse the system would know more about service dog training, but this is not the case.
I am very glad that this problem is localised to only the US and Canada, countries I don't live in.
I am opposed to ID because 1) it will become too easy for non-service dog handlers to obtain illegitimate documentation; and 2) the vast majority of dog refusals into buildings that have sparked media attention were because the owner failed to state a function the dog has been trained to perform—you would think that people trying to abuse the system would know more about service dog training, but this is not the case.
I am very glad that this problem is localised to only the US and Canada, countries I don't live in.
CloudyBeep 1 points 4y ago
Workers in stores and the like need to learn that they can refuse dogs where the owner cannot explain a function the dog has been trained to perform. For example, "My dog makes me feel calm" would be unacceptable, but "My dog has been trained to perform [specific behavior] when it detects that I am going to have a panic attack" would be acceptable.
I am opposed to ID because 1) it will become too easy for non-service dog handlers to obtain illegitimate documentation; and 2) the vast majority of dog refusals into buildings that have sparked media attention were because the owner failed to state a function the dog has been trained to perform—you would think that people trying to abuse the system would know more about service dog training, but this is not the case.
I am very glad that this problem is localised to only the US and Canada, countries I don't live in.
I am opposed to ID because 1) it will become too easy for non-service dog handlers to obtain illegitimate documentation; and 2) the vast majority of dog refusals into buildings that have sparked media attention were because the owner failed to state a function the dog has been trained to perform—you would think that people trying to abuse the system would know more about service dog training, but this is not the case.
I am very glad that this problem is localised to only the US and Canada, countries I don't live in.
CloudyBeep 1 points 4y ago
Workers in stores and the like need to learn that they can refuse dogs where the owner cannot explain a function the dog has been trained to perform. For example, "My dog makes me feel calm" would be unacceptable, but "My dog has been trained to perform [specific behavior] when it detects that I am going to have a panic attack" would be acceptable.
I am opposed to ID because 1) it will become too easy for non-service dog handlers to obtain illegitimate documentation; and 2) the vast majority of dog refusals into buildings that have sparked media attention were because the owner failed to state a function the dog has been trained to perform—you would think that people trying to abuse the system would know more about service dog training, but this is not the case.
I am very glad that this problem is localised to only the US and Canada, countries I don't live in.
I am opposed to ID because 1) it will become too easy for non-service dog handlers to obtain illegitimate documentation; and 2) the vast majority of dog refusals into buildings that have sparked media attention were because the owner failed to state a function the dog has been trained to perform—you would think that people trying to abuse the system would know more about service dog training, but this is not the case.
I am very glad that this problem is localised to only the US and Canada, countries I don't live in.
CloudyBeep 1 points 4y ago
Workers in stores and the like need to learn that they can refuse dogs where the owner cannot explain a function the dog has been trained to perform. For example, "My dog makes me feel calm" would be unacceptable, but "My dog has been trained to perform [specific behavior] when it detects that I am going to have a panic attack" would be acceptable.
I am opposed to ID because 1) it will become too easy for non-service dog handlers to obtain illegitimate documentation; and 2) the vast majority of dog refusals into buildings that have sparked media attention were because the owner failed to state a function the dog has been trained to perform—you would think that people trying to abuse the system would know more about service dog training, but this is not the case.
I am very glad that this problem is localised to only the US and Canada, countries I don't live in.
I am opposed to ID because 1) it will become too easy for non-service dog handlers to obtain illegitimate documentation; and 2) the vast majority of dog refusals into buildings that have sparked media attention were because the owner failed to state a function the dog has been trained to perform—you would think that people trying to abuse the system would know more about service dog training, but this is not the case.
I am very glad that this problem is localised to only the US and Canada, countries I don't live in.
CloudyBeep 1 points 4y ago
Workers in stores and the like need to learn that they can refuse dogs where the owner cannot explain a function the dog has been trained to perform. For example, "My dog makes me feel calm" would be unacceptable, but "My dog has been trained to perform [specific behavior] when it detects that I am going to have a panic attack" would be acceptable.
I am opposed to ID because 1) it will become too easy for non-service dog handlers to obtain illegitimate documentation; and 2) the vast majority of dog refusals into buildings that have sparked media attention were because the owner failed to state a function the dog has been trained to perform—you would think that people trying to abuse the system would know more about service dog training, but this is not the case.
I am very glad that this problem is localised to only the US and Canada, countries I don't live in.
I am opposed to ID because 1) it will become too easy for non-service dog handlers to obtain illegitimate documentation; and 2) the vast majority of dog refusals into buildings that have sparked media attention were because the owner failed to state a function the dog has been trained to perform—you would think that people trying to abuse the system would know more about service dog training, but this is not the case.
I am very glad that this problem is localised to only the US and Canada, countries I don't live in.
CloudyBeep 1 points 4y ago
I don't live in the US, and I'm very glad that this problem only seems to exist in the US and Canada.
There is a very specific list of functions that service dogs can perform. A person would need to know that they can't just say, "My dog makes me less stressed" because that is not something it has been trained to do. Most people who try to abuse this policy know little or nothing about service dog training.
I am opposed to identification because 1) it will become too easy to obtain illegitimate documentation, and 2) the vast majority of people who claim discrimination for their "service dog's" not being allowed into stores and the like is due to the dog not performing a disability-specific function.
There is a very specific list of functions that service dogs can perform. A person would need to know that they can't just say, "My dog makes me less stressed" because that is not something it has been trained to do. Most people who try to abuse this policy know little or nothing about service dog training.
I am opposed to identification because 1) it will become too easy to obtain illegitimate documentation, and 2) the vast majority of people who claim discrimination for their "service dog's" not being allowed into stores and the like is due to the dog not performing a disability-specific function.
CloudyBeep 1 points 4y ago
I don't live in the US, and I'm very glad that this problem only seems to exist in the US and Canada.
There is a very specific list of functions that service dogs can perform. A person would need to know that they can't just say, "My dog makes me less stressed" because that is not something it has been trained to do. Most people who try to abuse this policy know little or nothing about service dog training.
I am opposed to identification because 1) it will become too easy to obtain illegitimate documentation, and 2) the vast majority of people who claim discrimination for their "service dog's" not being allowed into stores and the like is due to the dog not performing a disability-specific function.
There is a very specific list of functions that service dogs can perform. A person would need to know that they can't just say, "My dog makes me less stressed" because that is not something it has been trained to do. Most people who try to abuse this policy know little or nothing about service dog training.
I am opposed to identification because 1) it will become too easy to obtain illegitimate documentation, and 2) the vast majority of people who claim discrimination for their "service dog's" not being allowed into stores and the like is due to the dog not performing a disability-specific function.
Stick81 2 points 4y ago
I looked into programs for guide dog training as well, particularly curriculum for training your own. I later found out that all the insurance issues that arise because you're often putting your life in the hands of the animal, especially a guide dog. I did like the idea of the canine good citizen system, where a dog is tested for temperament and behaviour before being certified to go in to public places. The problem I see with an id system is that it would require people to state the disability the service animal offers assistance for. The gray area is that a place of business can't ask what service your animal provides or what your particular condition is. So a federal system that puts that information at the forefront would be problematic. I am continually frustrated by people passing off obvious pets as service animals just to gain access to areas they otherwise wouldn't. I've seen several animals that can't manage to behave at a pet store much less an airport or busy restaurant. These animals hurt the reputation of legitimate service animals. One of my instructors at my state rehab agency had a guide dog, very well behaved, and she was easy to forget about until she was working. But, because other people want to take their pets to the store, it was a burden to take her after someone's little Fifi had peed on the floor or jumped on another patron.
CarolinaKiwi [OP] 1 points 4y ago
Would you support a federal ID system or do you think that is an unnecessary extra burden, and the focus should be on legislating and eventually prosecuting people who pass off their pets and buy fake vests?
Stick81 2 points 4y ago
I have heard about proposed legislation to prosecute the offenders, and I support that. I don't think that an id system is the best path. If there was a system identifying the animal and it's training I may support that if it was implemented well. But, I don't like the idea of a system that identifies and broadcasts privileged information about people's health, that sounds like an invasion of privacy, and a definite HIPAA violation. Possibly a system to certify animals through accredited training and testing, with documentation and a photo id of the animal, not to the particulars of the training, but that the animal is certified for public access and insured.
I went back and did more research about relevant legislation, it is already illegal to misrepresent any animal that is not specifically trained for providing assistance for a disability as such, excluding emotional support or comfort animals from the same rights as service animals. Some states have placed heavy penalties on such. I think that this kind of legislation is the best solution to the problem.
I went back and did more research about relevant legislation, it is already illegal to misrepresent any animal that is not specifically trained for providing assistance for a disability as such, excluding emotional support or comfort animals from the same rights as service animals. Some states have placed heavy penalties on such. I think that this kind of legislation is the best solution to the problem.
This nonprofit website is run by volunteers.
Please contribute if you can. Thank you!
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large-
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
©2023 HumbleCat Inc • HumbleCat is a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in Michigan, USA.