We're disabled, not dead -

You can get dogs specifically trained as emotional service animals, and I guess I can see that. But yeah, a dog not trained for that purpose should not be wearing a vest like that.

(Reply) (Thread)

I want an emotional support goat. Or a cow.

Or maybe a grizzly bear.

(Reply) (Thread)

And it seems to me that the woman you quote is fraudulently claiming her animal is in training, therefore her rights are not being infringed if she is challenged.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

My grizzly bear has been specially trained to devour people who annoy me. This is necessary for my emotional well-being.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Fine by me, just keep your damn service bear away from my service duck!

For I am armed with a service funnel web spider.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

This kind of thing scares the shit out of me.

The waiting list for program-trained hearing dogs is *long*. I'm training my own dog (with help from a trainer who has formerly worked with a hearing dog program).

I ordered her vest through the internet. It says "service dog" on one side and "hearing dog in training" on the other. In my state, service dogs in training (including owner-trained dogs) have the same access as fully-trained dogs. So I take my dog places.

It's an enormous pain in the ass to pursue a denial of access case. I don't think the anonymous chick quoted has any idea of how difficult it is. Even if she finds someone to represent her, she's going to have to prove that she *is* disabled. Simply having a DSM diagnosis is not the same as having a mental/emotional disorder that substantially interferes with major life activities. Being "hostile" isn't a disability.

And I doubt that the people who are falsely claiming that their animals are service animals would be prepared to go through with a court case. They'd most likely bluster and threaten, but if pushed to the mat, probably wouldn't actually file.

Which means that people who actually do have disabilities that interfere with major life functions, and whose animals are task-trained, are going to be on the receiving end of more challenges. They'll be the ones who have to fight for their rights, and a lot of people simply won't bother. Even though I feel confident that I'd win an access case (I have a documented disability--deafness is pretty disabling-- and my dog knows a few tasks (although she isn't fully trained), AND the law in my state recognizes dogs in training), it's probably not something I'd pursue.

Emotional support dogs are not the same as *task-trained* Psychiatric Service Dogs. And for the types of psych disabilities that are most likely to be disabling, I'm not sure how a dog can be *task-trained* to assist its owner. If a person's depressed and having to take the dog out keeps them from never leaving their house-- that's not a *task-trained* animal. ALL dogs need to eat, drink, and eliminate-- they don't have to be trained to do those things. If a person has social anxiety and having the dog makes her feel more comfortable about interacting with people-- again, that's not specific task-training, that something all dogs do. Person has delusions? What's the dog going to do, tell the person that he's right? I think the concept of "Psychiatric Service Dog" is a bit of a crock, in most cases.

Rant rant rant rant rant.....!!!

(Reply) (Thread)

I was agreeing with you, until you started bashing other disabled people.

ALl service dogs need to have general training to control when they relieve themselves, to not harm people or other animals, to follow commands, etc. A service dog in training is supposed to be a dog who has already graduated from a fairly high level of general obedience training and is now learning its job as a service dog.

For a psych service dog, that probably involves the same thing most service dogs go through - making sure they are comfortable in a wide variety of settings, and if they cannot become so, rejecting them as a service dog. Service dogs have to be tested to make sure they are likely to hold up across a wide range of possible situations.

And just because a dog doesn't do a clear task, doesn't mean that that person isn't disabled and doesn't need their dog - quite possibly more than you need yours. When you start playing the who is more disabled game or the who needs accomodations more game, you end up with everyone with any disabilities losing.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I didn't mean to sound like I was bashing other disabled people. I do think there is a distinction between "emotional support animals" and "psychiatric service dogs."

If they don't do a "clear task", then how are they "task-trained" to assist a person with a disability? How is the dog distinguished from a well-behaved dog?

I'm just wondering how a person whose dog doesn't do a "clear task" would fare in any legal challenges.

And I'm not trying to sound confrontational; I'm just unclear on what you mean.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

It sounded like you were calling service dogs for psychiatric needs mostly a crock and saying that they should not be protected the same way guide dogs for physical disabilities should be, even if the person desperately needs the dog in order to be able to function.

I think ramps are a crock. people with wheelchairs shouldn't be guaranteed ramps. Afterall, the ramp isn't trained at all. What's a ramp going to do? Make their legs work?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

My apologies.

But I'm still trying to understand how a dog that doesn't do a "clear task" is considered "task-trained" and given the same protections as dogs for other disabilities. The ramp analogy isn't making that any clearer for me. Can you help clear up my confusion?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

There are two separate arguments: are you arguing the law or what is right? It sounded like you were arguing both. And thus saying it was right to exclude protecting a dog that is assisting someone to function if the task it provides is being a dog and if the training it has is the level of training needed to make it behave properly in various situations. This may or may not be legal, it certainly isn't right. So, if your argument is simply that the law doesn't protect it, then that would be clearer if you said that these sorts of dogs aren't usually currently protected, and that's a shame and should be changed.

If you feel that this isn't the way things should be, then we're back to the issue of what is right. And I find it rather hypocritical to feel that your dog should be protected because it helps with your disability, but another dog should not be protected because the way it helps with its owner's disability/disabilities is not up to your personal standards.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Service dogs are allowed to accompany their clients because they allow their clients to function The presence of a dog inconveniences people (and I'm afraid of dogs), but I have no qualms about saying that a blind person's (say) being able to function trumps my comfort. Or someone with a psychiatric disorder. But I think I can ask that a distinction be drawn between service animals and pets.

For instance, only one of those two categories should be subsidized.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I agree, but I think the distinction is in the owner, not in the dog. If a dog is massively trained and helpful, but the owner has no relevant disabilities and doesn't need the dog, then the owner should not get to inherently bring the dog with him/her. If the dog is merely trained to behave properly and respectfully as all service dogs must be, but not to do anything fancier, but the owner cannot function without the dog, then I believe the owner should be allowed to bring the dog.

As with any disability issue, there will be borderline people and people who abuse the system. And the latter suck. But if you truly need the dog to function, or if the dog is massively helpful (as with many blind people, they can function without the dog, but the dog makes it much easier and safer, and I think that's sufficient) then I think it should be okay. But you have to have a relevant disability and the dog has to work toward fixing it. I'm not saying everyone gets to bring their pets. I certainly wouldn't like that, since I am allergic to several animals and have a nephew fairly badly allergic to dogs. But there's no way to make the system perfect. And, unfortunately, there isn't really any good replacement for a service animal for many things. For example, we don't have anything else that can do what a seizure dog can do. So, using anything but a dog just isn't an option. In my ideal world, we'd have non-living things capable of filling the roles of service animals.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

International Association of Assistance Dog Partners

President: Ed Eames, Ph.D.
3376 N. Wishon, Fresno, CA 93704-4832
Phone: (559) 224-0544 Fax: (559) 224-5851 E-mail:
eeames@...

Board of Directors:
Toni Eames, Tanya Eversole, Jill Exposito, Joan Froling,
Lynn Houston, Carol King, Wendy Morrell, Devon Wilkins


May 14, 2006

Letters
New York Times
FAX:

Dear Editor,

Beth Landmand's May 14 article raises the issue of the right of
people to be accompanied by their emotional support animals in
restaurants and hotels. In developing the regulations
implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Department
of Justice only provides this right for people with disabilities
partnered with trained service animals.

DOJ's guidance document permits business managers and owners to
ask: What tasks does your service animal perform?". Emotional
support animals providing comfort and stress relief by their mere
presence, and who have not been task trained to mitigate their
partners' disability, do not qualify as service animals.
Although the human may be deriving emotional well-being from the
animal, some animals experience overwhelming stress from urban
noise, congestion and unfamiliar environments. Exposing them to
these situations is inhumane.

To bring an animal into a restaurant or hotel, two elements need
to be met. The person must be a qualified person with a
disability as defined in the ADA and the animal must be trained.
If either element is misrepresented, the person is committing
fraud and is open to legal consequences.

The International Association of Assistance Dog Partners, a
cross disability consumer advocacy organization with more than
2,000 members working with guide, hearing and service dogs, is
concerned that businesses will be inundated with customers
fraudulently claiming they have the right to be accompanied by
their pets and emotional support animals. If this happens, we
believe our rights as guide, hearing and service dog partners
will be seriously jeopardized.

Ed Eames, Ph.D., President
IAADP

I agree with this.

And I didn't make the laws.

You may wish to voice your disagreement with the laws to your elected representatives, or even to Ed here.

I'm just afraid that *my* right to have my dog with me will be put at risk because of people who claim that an "emotional support" animal is the same as a service animal.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I believe emotional support dogs should be trained as well. And if it's inhumane to expose a dog to such things, it's inhumane regardless of the disability. I do not believe that it is inhumane though.

Okay, you have the law on your side. But what gives you more of a moral right to have use of a dog to compensate for something you need than someone else? What moral difference is there?

Quite frankly, with the exception of seizure dogs, I've never heard of a service animal that was needed as much as your hypothetical person who can't leave the house without an emotional support dog. Most people I know who are blind, deaf, or in wheelchairs can function, just not nearly as well, without a service dog. In many cases, the person has done so for years, but realizes (generally correctly) that they will have more independence and options with a service dog.

I'm not saying we shouldn't protect those rights. I just have trouble seeing why your dog should be considered differently?

Now, fraud is a separate issue. If you ~need~ a dog for emotional reasons, you should need to get that verified by a licensed professional within the field of psychology. I'm not suggesting a free for all. I just don't know what makes some disabilities so special that we should help people with them and others okay to ignore.

You seem to be saying it's fine to deny someone a dog if they cannot function without it, if it doesn't meet arbitrary guidelines for how it assists. And I still want to know - why? What's the relevant difference? Either way the person can't function without the dog and can with it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'm not arguing morals, and never said I was. I'm arguing legality.

My fear is that because of people such as the anonymous person quoted in the NYT article, legislators will be pressured by the hotel/restaurant/retail industries to try to get legislation passed that requires that dogs be program-trained in order to be recognized as service dogs. Some states have already attempted this (unsuccessfully, because it goes against the ADA).

Perhaps your hypothetical person who can't function without the dog should go to court and try to get some good law made with regard to emotional assistance animals. Because people who fraudulently claim the law is on their side surely aren't going to put that assertion to the test. So someone who has a problem similar to what you described would be the perfect plaintiff in such a test case.

But really-- *I'm* not the one you should be arguing with. I'm just one of a million people on LJ, expressing my opinion. If you really want change, your points would be better made to somebody who can do something about it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Actually, I agree with your points in this comment. The attempt to clear up the same issue in a previous comment failed. But your views as stated above are ones I hold too.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yeah, I actually think we're more in agreement than disagreement.

And it's true-- my dog will potentially save my life if the fire alarm goes off while I'm sleeping (and there's an actual fire). But in public places, there's not a whole lot she needs to do. Yet I have the right to take her into public places, just because I have a certain disability and the dog does certain things to help me.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Person has delusions? What's the dog going to do, tell the person that he's right?

Train the dog to bark at real threats and ignore false ones, so it's possible to tell hallucinations from reality?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

http://www.iaadp.org/psd_tasks.html Here's a list of possible tasks, at that...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Thanks. And wow, a lot I didn't think about.

I guess I'm a little touchy on the subject of PSDs, since I know someone who claims her dog is a PSD (even though its basic obedience training sucks, it's uncontrollable in public places, and aggressive toward other dogs). She claims it's a service dog because when she's depressed, she's forced to get up and take the dog out. Or because she feels more comfortable around people when she has the dog. From listening to her, it seemed that the line betwen "comfort animals" and PSDs was *awfully* fuzzy.

But the list of tasks described makes it clear that the dogs can be trained to perform really useful functions. Thanks for posting that.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"And for the types of psych disabilities that are most likely to be disabling, I'm not sure how a dog can be *task-trained* to assist its owner."

(First, just to be clear I don't consider autism to be psychiatric or a bad thing, but it is listed in the DSM. :-)

I don't have/use one, but I do know quite a few autistics that rely on a task-oriented trained dog to do functions very similar to the ones that dogs trained for people with visual/hearing impairment or epilepsy. The most common task is recognizing when the autistic is becoming distressed/overloaded before a meltdown occurs, gently guiding them out of the situation, and once in an appropriate place, onto a flat surface so the dog can then lay down on top of them, providing deep pressure that calms the autistic's neurological system.

Other autistics I know have dogs that are trained to keep them safe -- we're prone to not recognizing danger, especially when distressed, and the dog can then keep the person from (for example) darting into traffic or just bolting off in whatever random direction seems best. I believe that the dogs are also trained to help keep other people from getting too close to the autistic, and I do know that they are trained as "social signal" dogs -- reading non-autistic people's intents and (since we often don't know, and can get into very dangerous situations from being too trusting/friendly) guiding the autistic away from somebody that might have sinister intent.

When I'm outside, I have to rely on a human being for the things that the "psych" service dogs might do. That's okay for now, but eventually a service animal trained for autism-specific tasks will probably help... It will undoubtedly look like it is just providing emotional support, but there will be a lot of other things it's doing. :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yeah, I wasn't thinking of autism as a psychiatric thing. I've always thought of it as a developmental thing.

Your explanation was really clear and understandable to me. I also have epilepsy, and am hoping to get the dog to be able to guide me away from fluorescent lights-- the dog gets really agitated when I'm having neurological stuff going on, so I'd like to be able to train her to respond to it. But right now we're working on responding to sounds, since that's pretty straightforward.

And what you described doesn't sound like "just providing emotional support." I mean, it's different from saying, "I feel more comfortable with my dog around."

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yeah. I've been considering getting an autistic service dog if I ever end up somewhere where I'm likely to end up using public transportation a lot. Noise and crowds make me very disoriented to the point where I can forget where I am and what I'm trying to do. It's not usually a major issue on a college campus, but a busy subway is another matter.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Psych dogs can remind their owners to take medications at the proper times.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

My RL sister trains service & therapy dogs; her 2-yr. old Siberian Husky went through an entire battery of tests (agility, temperament, intelligence) just to qualify for further training! It irks me no end that people feel they are entitled to bring an untrained animal (with questionable temperament) around with them just because they're "emotionally needy".

Personally, I'd like to bring therapy sharks around with me everyday - preferably sharks that can shoot laser beams out of their eyes. I'd feel less needy that way... ;-D

(Reply) (Thread)

What about the rights of people with allergies? I can't imagine how miserable it would be for someone allergic to cats to be stuck on a plane with one. That's got to be one place where you wouldn't even consider needing to take preventive meds for.

(Reply) (Thread)