[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by clutchcargo777

Well, the impression I get is this thread is about the abusers. As we discuss this, you continue to point out there are legitimate service animals. The person you quoted with "exactly" pointed that out.

We all get it. There are legitimate service animals. It's obvious when one isn't.

I can comprehend quite a bit thank you.

The thread may tacitly be about "the abusers" ... but it doesn't say so in the thread title ... and many comments here are ridiculing that service dogs have any legitimacy beyond for the blind.

If you haven't discerned that, then no, you aren't comprehending what's being written.

[clutchcargo777]

Originally Posted by mizzile

If you have an allergy that severe to a common domestic animal, you should probably be aware you are going to encounter said animals and take steps to mitigate your symptoms.

I guess the answer is to not visit public places. Or medicate to the point of near unconsciousness.

How about dog owners not bring dogs into public places? It's been the solution for people allergic to smoke (or fake allergic). Smokers must not smoke in public places. I've always wondered what a dog person would do if we were both at Smiths and I lit up a cigarette next to her and her Chihuahua in the pasta aisle.

[clutchcargo777]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

The thread may tacitly be about "the abusers" ... but it doesn't say so in the thread title ... and many comments here are ridiculing that service dogs have any legitimacy beyond for the blind.

If you haven't discerned that, then no, you aren't comprehending what's being written.

The quotes around "service" in the title made me comprehend possible sarcasm. As in not really service animals. Comprender?

[Hughie]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

The thread may tacitly be about "the abusers" ... but it doesn't say so in the thread title ... and many comments here are ridiculing that service dogs have any legitimacy beyond for the blind.

If you haven't discerned that, then no, you aren't comprehending what's being written.

Well excuse me. As the OP, most people can "comprehend" that the quotation marks on the word "service" would say "fictitious".

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by clutchcargo777

The quotes around "service" in the title made me comprehend possible sarcasm. As in not really service animals. Comprender?

Yes ... and from there you joined in the ridicule which has been quite generalized to the concept of any service.

Originally Posted by Hughie

Well excuse me. As the OP, most people can "comprehend" that the quotation marks on the word "service" would say "fictitious".

You're excused ... sort of. Because what you've done is begged ridicule of a very important relationship for many. It's perfectly reasonable to discuss the issue of "fake" service vs real service. But mostly, predictably, what's occured in "your" thread is a "dog pile" of ridicule which only serves to delegitimize the real services provided to many.

If you don't have a solution to offer ... and you don't ask for legitimate ideas that can preserve the value of the "service" then what's the point? What was your intention - other than to have some fun at the expense of a valuable function?

[Hughie]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Yes ... and from there you joined in the ridicule which has been quite generalized to the concept of any service.


You're excused ... sort of. Because what you've done is begged ridicule of a very important relationship for many. It's perfectly reasonable to discuss the issue of "fake" service vs real service. But mostly, predictably, what's occured in "your" thread is a "dog pile" of ridicule which only serves to delegitimize the real services provided to many.

If you don't have a solution to offer ... and you don't ask for legitimate ideas that can preserve the value of the "service" then what's the point? What was your intention - other than to have some fun at the expense of a valuable function?

OK whatever you say. I have a solution to offer, just as many others have posted. Please read before you post.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Hughie

OK whatever you say. I have a solution to offer, just as many others have posted. Please read before you post.

I believe I've read every post in this thread. Didn't see any "solution" proposed by anyone except 'murk' in post 51. If you'd quote yours and I missed it I'd be happy to reconsider.

I did however catch your concerns about "only a matter of time before someone's pit bull" rips someone's face off" etc. while posing as a "service dog." Which really amounts to fear-mongering ...

Fearmongering or scaremongering is the spreading of frightening and exaggerated rumors of an impending danger or the habit or tactic of purposely and needlessly arousing public fear about an issue

... thanks for the public service there ...

[aswontsp]

Tulemutt, it seems that you're fighting a lost battle re: the pit bull fallacy. Decades of micro conditioning at the local scale has resulted in this solidified prejudice against the breed. Week after week local news stations for example, purposefully seek out people who have been victimized or killed by pit bulls on a national scale, and then they feed it to their viewers as an irrelevant fallacy.

As someone who understands this breed, I assure you that the improper upbringing and treatment of the animal is ultimately what results in a violent attack down the line. You will get nowhere attempting to communicate this to anyone who consumes that type of media like their cereal for breakfast.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by quebon

Let us not twist the intended message. Did it occur to you that advances in modern societies have proven the effectiveness of pets as an aid to certain people who need to cope and heal so they can live their lives as normal as possible? Perhaps you only see the primitive aspects of domesticating dogs, but back then it was do or die. There was no time to sit around and lament, regret and fall into depression or mental illness. And if you did, you'd get thrown into a pit.

quebon, it was you who started the discussion of 10,000 year old domestication. I merely pointed out that domestication occurred 10,000 years ago for the reasons of hunting, herding and warfare.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You do also realize that service dogs are legally held to standards of behaviors, right?

Yes... but many of the complaints in this thread are not about actual service dogs. The complaints are about counterfeit service dogs. Anyone can order a service dog vest online and put it on any random pooch that has zero training or standard of behaviour.

See for example https://www.officialservicedogregist...g-information/

Registration is conducted under the honor system and we are not required to verify any disability or review any documentation to verify any disability... The registry is not intended to be a certification process and we do not judge the proficiency of our registrants in any way...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifest...103-story.html

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

In fact, the store managers have the right to challenge the legal status of any service dog.

Under federal law, the store manager cannot even ask "is that a real service animal or a fake one?"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifest...103-story.html

Is that service dog a fake? Under federal law, you can't even ask...Fake service dogs are essentially untrained pets wearing vests or tags purchased online so Fido can tag along, too. They've become the bane of those who rely on trained service dogs to deal with disabilities.