Fake service dogs... don't do it! (teeth, costs, reactions, kids)

[mjaynes288]

The ADA doesn't say anything about service dogs. The rules created by the Department of Justice to implement the ADA including service dogs are in the Codes of Federal Regulation. The DoJ can change the CFR without going to Congress. I believe they have to go through a process of taking public comment but considering the Trump administration's disdain for following procedure who knows.

[jmc94]

While I agree that fakers are definitely a problem (as someone who has a legitimate service dog), I feel as though they do less harm than those who make it their life goal to "point them out". The reason I say this is many people seem to think they are more educated than they actually are. They think they can spot a fake service dog vs a real service dog a mile away...when it's not always that simple. Too often I see people assuming any small dog is fake, or any person who doesn't have a very obvious, visual disability as a faker. The dog could otherwise be completely well behaved and trained to perform a task but the fact that it's not a stereotypical breed like a lab makes people think they're somehow being duped.


Also, the article has a LOT of issues. I'd first like to address this line:

"The Americans with Disabilities Act defines a service animal as one “individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability.” That applies only to dogs and miniature horses, and excludes animals needed mainly for psychological support, such as so-called emotional support dogs, comfort dogs, and therapy dogs."

While the first part is of course true, I feel as though the second half vastly rules out psychological and mental disabilities. The different between a service dog and an ESA isn't the fact that one disability is physical and one is mental. The difference is that service dogs are trained to perform a task. Believe it or not, that task can aid those with Psychological/mental disabilities...such as PTSD or, in my case, Autism. This article, in my opinion, really adds to the already-there stigma that things like these are a nonissue or even nonexistent.

I also don't exactly like how their use of "so-called". I know a lot of people (especially in LA) abuse ESAs. But there's tons of other things that people abuse too. It doesn't make the correct usage illegitimate. My doctor suggested an actual service dog to my family because an ESA could not meet some of my needs, but he also talked about a lot of success stories with ESAs, especially reducing stress. If someone having their dog on a plane or living with them calms them enough so that they don't have to resort to medication (or can take a reduced dose) - is that illegitimate?

Also, I find it funny they mention TJX as a store that "suffers" from being too scared to say anything about dogs...when TJX isn't a "service-dog only" store.



In the end, things like this getting passed will only hurt legitimate persons with disabilities. And I won't be surprised if it happens either - as it'll be another way for the government to capitalize off something. Most people with disabilities can not afford 50,000$ service animals from top trainers. Most get from local organizations or personal trainers looking to help. If the dog is truly trained to do its task, why does it matter where it comes from? To the people who think it would be so easy to demand proof - this is what makes it difficult. And the ESA thing proves that letters from doctors can be easily feigned, as having an ESA requires one.

I would not have got through college without my service dog. I can't even count the amount of times he has stopped me from getting hit or alerting me to sounds I might have missed. And that's 1% of what he does for me, those are just things that seem life - or - death significant. Does it annoy me that some people who have no real need may lie when I would do anything to be able to just go to school normally? Yes. But do I sit there and try and determine if every dog I see is a real or fake service dog?

I think the one thing I agree with in the article is how annoying the fact that people faking service dogs make people judge ME for mine/speculate on whether or not mine is a real service dog. But again...that really comes down to the people doing the judging as well.

[Oldhag1]

Originally Posted by melaniej65

It is simply not as easy as "combine trips". Things don't come up at the same time - they just do not. Handicap placard, SSDI, medical equipment (wheelchairs, blind canes), RXs for personal items (diabetic, ostomy, catheters, stuff for wound care, etc). Then you have required trips for pump care, RXs for meds and too many other things that no matter how one tries to coordinate appointments they just never work out.

Then, for those who use handi-van transportation just ONE of these appointments can literally take 5-6 hours (and that is if the Dr. sees you on time).

You take the piece of paper with you to one of those already scheduled appointments. You hand the paper to the receptionist, nurse, or doctor and say, "I also need this filled out, please." For a service dog to be legitimate "medical equipment" some medical professional needs to have recommended it, just like getting a blood glucose reader or blood pressure machine covered by insurance requires a prescription. People seem to figure out how to find the time to get their doctor to sign a form for handicapped parking space tags, this should be considered no different. For Heaven's sake, if you are already investing 5-6 hours to see the doctor, invest 10 more minutes.

Originally Posted by melaniej65

So, the hoops are plentiful and not "simple". Most able bodied people would be crushed under the weight of what it takes to simply survive. But, hey maybe we will simply die if healthcare is denied to us' then no one needs to worry about Service Dogs.

As a general rule, blantant over-the-top hyperbole weakens a person's case in a debate because it makes the other person have a tendency to dismiss whatever else they say as equally ridiculous.

Who said anyone was proposing denying anyone healthcare? Except in very, very rare cases, service animals are not healthcare, they are something that improves the quality of the disabled person's life. If I don't have one of my medications I will die within about 48 hours, if I don't have my cane (or at times wheelchair) my life will be absolutely miserable but, barring an unusual catastrophe, I'll live. The two are not of equal importance and pretending they are would cheapen the seriousness or urgency of having access to the medication. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I need the cane to retrieve the medication and a glass of water, but if someone sits the medication within reach I can get it in my body, even without the water. Quality of life is important, and it shouldn't be dismissed, but to act like someone is proposing to let you wilt away and die because they want to regulate something you will still be able to obtain is ridiculous.

[Oldhag1]

Originally Posted by jmc94

While I agree that fakers are definitely a problem (as someone who has a legitimate service dog), I feel as though they do less harm than those who make it their life goal to "point them out". The reason I say this is many people seem to think they are more educated than they actually are. They think they can spot a fake service dog vs a real service dog a mile away...when it's not always that simple. Too often I see people assuming any small dog is fake, or any person who doesn't have a very obvious, visual disability as a faker. The dog could otherwise be completely well behaved and trained to perform a task but the fact that it's not a stereotypical breed like a lab makes people think they're somehow being duped.

When the "service dog" snaps or snarls at anyone coming within range of them I think it is safe to assume they aren't a legitimate service animal. This would not be an issue if the dog had a government issued service animal license.

Originally Posted by jmc94

In the end, things like this getting passed will only hurt legitimate persons with disabilities. And I won't be surprised if it happens either - as it'll be another way for the government to capitalize off something. Most people with disabilities can not afford 50,000$ service animals from top trainers. Most get from local organizations or personal trainers looking to help. If the dog is truly trained to do its task, why does it matter where it comes from? To the people who think it would be so easy to demand proof - this is what makes it difficult.

In at least one other country the animal must pass a onetime test, who trained it is immaterial. Yes, that will probably come with a fee, but so do handicapped parking tags. Plus, the government can set limits on the fees and/or have provisions for income based fees.

Originally Posted by jmc94

And the ESA thing proves that letters from doctors can be easily feigned, as having an ESA requires one.

I do agree, however, people will be a bit more hesitant handing falsified documents to a government entity than some ordinary landlord, especially if doing so comes with hefty fines for the person handing over the papers, along with rules about who qualifies to sign the medical forms similar to those associated with handicapped parking tags.

Originally Posted by jmc94

I think the one thing I agree with in the article is how annoying the fact that people faking service dogs make people judge ME for mine/speculate on whether or not mine is a real service dog. But again...that really comes down to the people doing the judging as well.

Your use of a service animal, like many things, does impact other people. They may be allergic to dogs, they may be terrified of dogs, they may be terrified of dog germs, or they may strongly feel dogs only belong outdoors. If you have a legitimate need and a specifically trained dog, the DOJ has decided that your need to have that service animals overrides whatever objections they have, and most people do not disagree with that concept. What they disagree with is the abuse of the privledge that has been created by the "2 question only, no proof whatsoever" policy. I have a neighbor who is totally guilty of this, about the only place she doesn't try to take her cute little fluffy "service dog" that has "occasional accidents once or twice a day" is to doctor appointments. Gee, aren't I awful for being skeptical.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

Originally Posted by jmc94

While I agree that fakers are definitely a problem (as someone who has a legitimate service dog), I feel as though they do less harm than ...............

Try to convince all the landlords who are trying to keep out pets and trying to keep out breeds of dogs that their insurance company doesn't allow. You are never going to convince them that fake service dogs are not an extremely serious issue. Or that fakes are less harmful than the people who point them out.

Probably the store owners who have fake service dogs come in and urinate on the merchandise and poop on the floor are not going to be convinced, either.

[mjaynes288]

HUD has put out a statement that landlords can deny service dogs if the dogs breed would cause their insurance costs to go up. They do need to make a good faith effort and check around with other insurance companies but if they can't find the same coverage for the same price that accepts the breed they can deny the request as unreasonable.

The last rules change added the fact the service dog must be house trained. Business owners can ask dogs that are not house trained to leave and if it happens on more than one occasion they can ban a specific dog from the store. Handlers are liable for any damages their dog does so I would charge them for any damaged products.

[mjaynes288]

Originally Posted by Oldhag1

When the "service dog" snaps or snarls at anyone coming within range of them I think it is safe to assume they aren't a legitimate service animal. This would not be an issue if the dog had a government issued service animal license.

The regulations already allow businesses to ask a service dog that poses a direct threat to leave. It does not matter if the dog was trained by the Seeing Eye if it snaps or snarls at people it poses a direct threat. It is not actual service dog handlers' fault businesses are not educated about the law and do not avail themselves of it.

[jmc94]

Originally Posted by Oldhag1

When the "service dog" snaps or snarls at anyone coming within range of them I think it is safe to assume they aren't a legitimate service animal. This would not be an issue if the dog had a government issued service animal license.

----
I have a neighbor who is totally guilty of this, about the only place she doesn't try to take her cute little fluffy "service dog" that has "occasional accidents once or twice a day" is to doctor appointments. Gee, aren't I awful for being skeptical.

I don't exactly understand your first point because even with a current law, even if a legitimate service dog snaps or snarls (which is possible. These dogs are highly trained but they are still dogs. Something can go wrong) then they can be denied.. Same with urinating or anything that would otherwise disturb the peace.

So fake service dogs doing these things could just as easily be kicked out with the CURRENT LAW.

I completely agree that faking is an issue, but you also aren't going to tell me that over skepticism isn't an issue as well. The issue isn't people seeing an extremely untrained dog and thinking it's fake. The issue is that many people think any dog that doesn't fit the "norm" of service dog - or any person that doesn't have a "visible" disability is faking!

I see some people on forums like this complain about how if a dog isn't a seeing eye dog or something similarly extreme, it's not legitimate. And that hurts people with disabilities.

[jmc94]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

Try to convince all the landlords who are trying to keep out pets and trying to keep out breeds of dogs that their insurance company doesn't allow. You are never going to convince them that fake service dogs are not an extremely serious issue. Or that fakes are less harmful than the people who point them out.

Probably the store owners who have fake service dogs come in and urinate on the merchandise and poop on the floor are not going to be convinced, either.

Fake service dogs ARE an issue. Stigma and over skepticism is also an issue, especially in a world where having a disability already makes you feel like a second class citizen.

Also, even with current laws, store owners could kick out even a legitimate service dog who does things like that.

[jmc94]

I just wanted to clarify that I definitely think people faking service dogs is a big issue. I just also think the way people handle it are an issue too.

I've actually never had a bad experience with mine, despite him being small. Although it is annoying sometimes when people are like "I can't believe he's so well behaved" and things like that. And in my head I'm like "obviously...". But overall no one has been mean or rude (at least to my face).

HOWEVER, I have a handicap parking pass (for reasons actually unrelated) and people have been EXTREMELY rude to me over this! As far as being confrontational when I park. Which obviously stems from people who shouldn't be parking in handicap spaces, parking in them. But in that moment, who do I think is more damaging? Probably the angry person telling me off for no reason, or demanding that I explain myself, when it's none of their business.