snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Social Studies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 23 March 2014, 02:08 AM
PrairieBlueEyes's Avatar
PrairieBlueEyes PrairieBlueEyes is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2007
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 676
Default

I don't have a cite but did hear this on the CBC this morning. The dog was said to have a vest on indicating service/therapy dog and the man said he had papers for it. What he objected to was telling the owner out loud in front of other customers that he had PTSD, feeling it was nobody's business.

According to the Canadian Registry of Therapy Animals and Service Animals, the laws are fairly vague here and often vary from province to province with some called "The Blind Person's Act", which is too specific given the larger variety of reasons that people may have a service or therapy dog.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 23 March 2014, 02:53 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,232
Default

If the dog had a vest indicating it was a service dog, then according to the cite provided earlier the owner didn't have the right to ask for anything because it would have been "apparent" that the dog was a service dog.

Dogs that are individually trained to do a specific task or tasks are defined as service dogs under the ADA. Dogs trained to provide distraction and calming during an anxiety attack or time of stress for someone who has PTSD are service dogs, not therapy dogs. It's given as a specific example here: http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

I don't know if Canadian law is the same.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 23 March 2014, 03:04 AM
Sylvanz's Avatar
Sylvanz Sylvanz is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,958
Default

That's why I asked about Chihuahuas not being service dogs. If what you have them for is anxiety, PTSD, or perhaps seizure detection then I think they'd be pretty handy. My DH has gotten through some hella depression with the help of our 4 lb. Chihuahua. They are small and portable, and as long as their person is with them they are quiet. Oh, and the reason I didn't think the Yorkie was a service dog was the way the woman told me the dog was. I really got the impression she was lying. It wasn't because I thought Yorkies were incapable of serving a need.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 23 March 2014, 04:38 AM
Not_Done_Living's Avatar
Not_Done_Living Not_Done_Living is offline
 
Join Date: 02 September 2006
Location: Markham, ON
Posts: 3,735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
If the dog had a vest indicating it was a service dog, then according to the cite provided earlier the owner didn't have the right to ask for anything because it would have been "apparent" that the dog was a service dog.

Dogs that are individually trained to do a specific task or tasks are defined as service dogs under the ADA. Dogs trained to provide distraction and calming during an anxiety attack or time of stress for someone who has PTSD are service dogs, not therapy dogs. It's given as a specific example here: http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

I don't know if Canadian law is the same.

The problem is -- there are so many fake/false uses of Service dog badges, patches and certifications. and it's cheap --- and with the laws being "you cannot ask for proof that this service dog is a service dog" (apparently) easily abused.

http://www.ebay.ca/sch/i.html?_trksi...at=0&_from=R40
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 23 March 2014, 07:49 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,232
Default

The guy was still breaking the law by asking, because under the law a vest makes the dog's status "apparent." It's spelled out in the law. And people point out how easy it is to get these vests, but no one really knows how much "cheating" there really is, because there are hidden disabilities and nontraditional service dogs like the ones in the OP. As pointed out above, even a Chihuahua or a Yorkie in a stroller could conceivably be a service dog, and people shouldn't really assume otherwise. So I guess, cite please, on the "many" fake users of service dog emblems.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 23 March 2014, 11:13 AM
geminilee's Avatar
geminilee geminilee is offline
 
Join Date: 02 December 2005
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 11,518
Default

Grumble stupid phone ate my post grumble.
Ahem.

Also, service animals who misbehave or cause problems can legally be kicked out. So the only people who could get away with abuse are those whose animals are well behaved and do not cause more problems than a legitimate service animal. That being the case, is it enough of an issue to create an additional burden of disclosure for people whose lives, let's face it, are probably plenty hard already.

I just don't see it as being enough of a problem, given the rules as they stand now, to place that additional burden on the disabled.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 23 March 2014, 03:45 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

Most places I've checked say the service animal must be trained - and there has to be proof of that training. But at the same time the codes almost always say that the store owner (or whoever) can't ask for proof. I am not seeing the point of even having a code that says the dog needs to be trained if no one is allowed to confirm that. It seems you as a store owner (or whoever) just have to wait and see if the dog or other animal misbehaves and then you can kick them out. Which you can do anyway but isn't much help if they've bitten somewhere or pooped all over a booth.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 23 March 2014, 03:51 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

Maybe if they do misbehave the store owner can press some kind of charges, and if it's illegal to pretend to have a service dog (no idea) perhaps that is where getting the proof would come into play?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 23 March 2014, 04:07 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,505
Default

I don't want to see store owners/management taken advantage of, but on the other hand I don't want people who use service animals to be subject to intrusive questioning, especially about the nature of their illness or disability. Barring evidence of widespread abuse by people trying to pass pets off as service dogs, I'm inclined to lean toward shielding people who use service dogs.

ETA: Even something as simple and non-intrusive as showing written proof of training could become burdensome if you have to do it every time you walk into a place of business. The goal is for people to be able to live their lives as normally as possible.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 23 March 2014, 04:12 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
Maybe if they do misbehave the store owner can press some kind of charges, and if it's illegal to pretend to have a service dog (no idea) perhaps that is where getting the proof would come into play?
That could be. What I think should happen though is that if you have a service animal that has been trained in the way the codes say they need to be trained then the dog or animal should have some kind of license issued that confirms they are a trained service animal. That license doesn't need to say why the animal is being used. And it should be perfectly in order for someone to ask to see the license. Especially if your service dog is dressed up and you are pushing it in a toy stroller.

(note: I guess these could be counterfeited in the same way vests and the like are but then so can driver's licenses and no one is saying we shouldn't use a driver's license as ID so it's not something I think should stop it).
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 23 March 2014, 06:49 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,232
Default

How are vests being counterfeited? There's a market for them, and they are sold. Do you think people with service dogs should have to go through some sort of official channels to outfit their dogs, and to replace gear that is lost or worn out or damaged? I would imagine the price would go up considerably, and the hassle as well, if gear was so restricted.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 23 March 2014, 07:16 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

If you're talking to me I took Not Done Living's post and perhaps falsely assumed he was talking about faked insignia. In any event that's not the real issue, the real issue is do people abuse the system. Perhaps this is such a minor problem it's not worth worrying about. I don't know. The people to ask are those with genuine service animals.

ETA: and also perhaps those people who have to allow animals into a place where animals are normally forbidden and must deal with the consequences if there is a problem.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health...em-f8C11366537

Quote:
It's an easy law to break, and dog cheats do. By strapping a vest or backpack that says "service animal" to their pet, anyone can go in stores and restaurants where other dogs are banned, creating growing problems for the disabled community and business owners and leading to calls for better identifying the real deal.

Those with disabilities are worried about privacy and the safety of their highly trained service dogs, while business owners are concerned about health violations and damage to merchandise from impostors abusing the system.

Last edited by Sue; 23 March 2014 at 07:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 23 March 2014, 07:50 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,232
Default

I would be very interested to know if disabled people generally would welcome the changes that are being proposed, or like your quote suggests, that they would see them as an additional burden.

From your article:
Quote:
"While we deplore those who might be so unethical as to impersonate a disabled person by dressing their dog up as a service animal, we equally deplore the frenzy of alarm being stirred up about the risk of such abuse," said Joan Froling, chairwoman of the IAADP.
And here's a post from someone who is frequently a victim of people thinking he is faking:
Quote:
My favorite example, though, has to be when I walked into a Whole Foods once with my service dog to buy some groceries. Upon entering the store I was immediately confronted by an angry security guard who demanded to see a “service dog license” for my animal (despite the fact that this, too, is illegal according to the ADA). After I appeased him, I walked a few feet further into the store only to be confronted, again, by a Beverly-Hills-housewife type woman who noted my dog’s service vest and greeted me with:

“Service dog? Yeah [NFBSK]ing right.”
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2014/0...dog-yeah-right

It's a very good post, covering lots of things being discussed here, including invisible disabilities, and the fact that people claiming that there's an epidemic of fake service dogs can't really know that.

It seems as though service dog trainers and business owners are the ones pushing for this, not disabled people. I tend to think that if disabled people want the change, then I would support it, but if it is just seen as an additional burden--which the "fake" service dogs are not significantly, apparently--then I don't support it, and question the motives of those pushing for it.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 23 March 2014, 08:04 PM
Die Capacitrix's Avatar
Die Capacitrix Die Capacitrix is offline
 
Join Date: 03 January 2005
Location: Kanton Luzern, Switzerland
Posts: 3,323
Default

We require a similar group to have handicapped parking stickers/plates/placards. Why should one group have to have paperwork and the other not? Neither has to explain, except to the doctor who issued the paperwork, why they need it.

The other option is allow pets in more places, as they do here. That said, I've never seen a service animal in the grocery store, which typically bans dogs, unlike restaurants and stores which do permit dogs.

The only service dog I see regularly is on the train from Luzern.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 23 March 2014, 08:09 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,505
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Die Capacitrix View Post
We require a similar group to have handicapped parking stickers/plates/placards. Why should one group have to have paperwork and the other not? Neither has to explain, except to the doctor who issued the paperwork, why they need it.
There is a finite number of handicapped parking spaces; when one car is parked in a handicapped spot, that spot is unavailable to other cars. The situation with service dogs isn't analagous, IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 23 March 2014, 08:15 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,232
Default

Another good article, which talks about why people should not try to pass pets off as service dogs, and also includes this:
Quote:
The Media — and Well-Intentioned People — Can Do the Most Harm
Most people will never encounter Service Dog. However, the degree of suspicion Service Dog teams face is further complicated by well-meaning — but ultimately hurtful — news, blog or social media stories that give the public the impression society is being overrun by fake Service Dogs. The unintended effect is causing the public to be suspicious of every Service Dog team they meet. While one poorly behaved animal in a restaurant can create a bad impression for 20 people, a story or social media post about the event will exponentially create a bad impression with hundreds or thousands — or millions — of people. The effect is exponential.
And this:
Quote:
Think twice before making blanket statements about fake Service Dogs. While you’re trying to help, you may actually be doing more damage than you think. It’s far more helpful to make statements like these:

1. There are no papers, documents, certifications, vests, tags or special IDs required for Service Dogs in the United States. Under federal law, disabled individuals accompanied by Service Dogs are allowed access to places selling goods or services of any kind, including places offering entertainment, lodging and food.
2. Fake Service Dogs can often be identified by their lack of manners, obvious lack of training and ill behavior. If a “Service Dog” is interrupting a business’ daily operation with its behavior, it’s a danger to anyone or its conduct is NOT conduct acceptable in a Service Dog (barking, growling, stealing food from other clients, knocking people over, jumping, or many other behaviors), by law, the manager or business owner has every right to ask the person to remove the dog from the premises, “Service Dog” or not.
3. There are many different types of disabilities, and there are many different types of Service Dogs. You can’t determine if a Service Dog is “real” based on sight alone. Service Dogs come in all shapes, sizes and breeds. The only indicator that team is “legit” is the dog’s behavior. Service Dogs are well-trained, well-mannered, calm, unobtrusive and handler focused.

As a result of the public self-appointing themselves as members of the “Service Dog police” and the media’s sweeping statements concerning the Service Dog community, all SD handlers, especially those with invisible disabilities like hearing loss, diabetes, PTSD or a seizure disorder, face a sense of distrust from bystanders, business owners and the public that is sometimes [palpable]. Handlers frequently face silent stares, pointed digs or inquiries, outright invasion of privacy and many other difficulties.
(Bolding mine).

I would note that, as geminilee pointed out above, a dog that is misbehaving can be excluded from premises, even if it's a service dog. So if the behavior of the dog is a problem, then it doesn't matter whether it's a "fake" service dog or not--though it probably is. Otherwise, if the dog is well-behaved, if it is claimed to be a service dog then it should be accepted as such. And if that means someone gets away with having their well-behaved pet in a place that wouldn't otherwise allow dogs, then so be it.

Last edited by erwins; 23 March 2014 at 08:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 24 March 2014, 03:25 AM
Sylvanz's Avatar
Sylvanz Sylvanz is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,958
Default

I don't get the anger and disdain heaped on people perceived to be "faking". My co-worker was soooo angry and affronted that the woman in question claimed her dog was a service animal. I know that our company is violating federal law when having us ask for documentation. I mean really, this is the first time in almost 8 years that a person has made this claim. I was slightly skeptical, but I wasn't angry and angling for a way around the law. I just don't get it. I mean who cares? The dog wasn't hurting anyone or near our food service area, and even if it was what harm could it do when being held by its owner? I'm more offended by people who insist on coming in the store barefoot or shirtless. They know better and some of the shirtless are actually being jerks seeing if we'll do anything about it. Some will hang a tank top around their necks and insist they are wearing a shirt. I guess this is my pet irritation.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 24 March 2014, 04:45 AM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

I wouldn't, as a rule, be angry at people who worry about people breaking the rules; they may well have a concern.

However, like a lot of stories of people 'gaming the system', I suspect that those who do so are in an extreme minority so probably aren't really worth worrying about.

If there were studies that showed an alarmingly large number of people were 'faking' it, and it was causing issues for business owners, then I would be on board with some kind of more appropriate confirmation measures. However, I have not seen such evidence, and doubt that the situation exists at all.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 24 March 2014, 03:59 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,315
Baseball

Where my fear lies is that we get into a situation where people are so fearful of challenging someone with an animal that business owners get penalised for people "gaming the system".

For example, let's assume that the woman with the small dog in the purse I mentioned earlier did not have a service animal, but she claimed it was. Let's also assume that she frequents that fast food restaurant for at least an hour every day. Health inspector shows up and sees an animal in the lobby eating fast food placed on the table for her**. What does the health inspector do?

- the owner is fearful of challenging anyone with an animal on the basis that he is violating their privacy rights
- the health inspector is observing an apparent violation of the health code

I fear that the reaction will be to penalise the restaurant owner for violating the health code rather than determine if the patron was in the wrong.

**this is what I observed in December. I assume the dog was a "her" because of all the pink clothing the dog was wearing.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ritalin disqualifies you from military service snopes Military 8 21 June 2012 03:53 PM
Wolf killed in Saskatchewan Chorduroy Fauxtography 16 04 May 2012 03:36 PM
Teacher makes dramatic point about military service snopes Snopes Spotting 15 12 December 2010 07:46 PM
Alligator in North Saskatchewan River Jenn Fauxtography 17 04 September 2009 11:39 PM
Clintons turned military into waiters snopes Politics 44 31 March 2007 01:34 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.