GO!

ADA require paperwork!!

The Service and Therapy Dog forum is for all service and therapy dogs regardless of whether or not their status is legally defined by federal or state law, how they are trained, or whether or not they are "certified." Posts questioning or disputing a person's need for a service or therapy dog, the validity of a person's service or therapy dog, or the dog's ability to do the work of a service or therapy dog are not permitted in this forum. Please keep discussions fun, friendly, and helpful at all times.

  
(Page 4 of 8: Viewing entries 31 to 40)  
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  
Cooper

microscopic mutt
 
 
Barked: Fri Sep 27, '13 9:25pm PST 
Lucy wrote:

The only thing that they can remove a SD from a business is AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR!

Oh dear... I'm so sorry, Lucy... I really hate to be the one to be the one to tell you this, but... whoever sold you your copy of the ADA ripped you off. laugh out loud

*MY* copy of 28 CFR Part 36 (that's Title III of the ADA, the part dealing with public accommodations) reads as follows:

§ 36.302 (c) Service animals.

(1) General. Generally, a public accommodation shall modify policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability.
(2) Exceptions. A public accommodation may ask an individual with a disability to remove a service animal from the premises if:
(i) The animal is out of control and the animal´s handler does not take effective action to control it; or
(ii) The animal is not housebroken.


(See, I'm trying to keep things light and friendly this time... smile )
[notify]
Lucy Ribeiro

1300329
 
 
Barked: Fri Sep 27, '13 9:46pm PST 
Cooper as I said before I will not be dignifying any of your responses with a answer anylonger as your taking what is being posted and using it in a negative. Take care respond all you want thats your perogative but I wont dignify with a response.

Business owners can remove a SD if they are behaving aggressively. I have spoken directly with people in the DOJ about it and they have told me that. I didnt read it on any paper called them directly because I kept having near misses with Un trained SD that almost bit my dog and were behaving aggressively so I called there number and they said the dog should have been asked to be removed well they should have asked the handler to remove the SD but would still have to provide services to the handler once the animal has been removed.
[notify]
Cooper

microscopic mutt
 
 
Barked: Fri Sep 27, '13 11:23pm PST 
laugh out loud Lucy - what, do think that people here are stupid or something? laugh out loud Anyone who's been paying attention knows that your problems with me started when I pointed out that there's no meaningful certification for owner-trained dogs. (Well, there are ADI outreach programs but I think there are only three or so of those left in the US so their impact is very minimal.) Call that turning something (what?) into a negative if you want - but it's the plain and simple truth. You also talked about taking "license exams" and I asked you what you meant by that. You weaseled out of answering, just saying that you'd taken "all the exams". And that's pretty much a "what the heck" because there's only ONE thing that people are talking about when they talk about certification, and that's the Public Access Test (PAT). And of course it's always possible that someone has taken a PAT without knowing what it's called, but that just seems like that would be a really weird thing, OK?

So it's not surprising that you don't like me: it appears that I've trampled on some beliefs that are pretty important to you. I assure you that it was through clumsiness rather than malice. And it's fine with me if you don't reply to my posts - I hardly need another BFF. laugh out loud

But know this: you really can not post egregiously wrong information here (like "The only thing that they can remove a SD from a business is AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR!" for instance) without it going unquestioned by me or someone else here. And that's not "being negative" or intended to make you feel bad. It's because the people here need accurate information - that goes for those who are thinking about getting an SD, as well as those who already have SDiTs and SDs. So try not to take things so personally, OK?
[notify]

Cooper

microscopic mutt
 
 
Barked: Sat Sep 28, '13 12:55am PST 
I really should go to bed - for one thing, even *I* am getting tired of hearing myself talk at this point smile - but I just can't help making just one more post. Nova, I'll reply to you tomorrow.

This one is for all the owner-trainers out there.

Whenever certification is talked about, an assumption is made that goes unsaid: that certification would either involve the ADI PAT or else something very much like it.

Personally I think that that is a very bad assumption. DOJ would be making the decision as to what form the certification process could take, and to date they haven't seemed too eager to roll over and play dead when it comes to ADI. DOJ goes its own way, and there's no reason to assume that ADI would would play much of a role in developing the certification program (much as they'd like to, of course).

(By the way, I haven't changed my opinion that it'll be a cold day in hell when the DOJ mandates certification, but that's a different argument. Right now I'm playing make-believe.)

So what would a certification test look like if it wasn't like the ADI PAT? Hmmm... the main thing is that there would be some process by which a dog/handler team would be evaluated and at the end there would be a clear answer: YES, the dog is a service dog or NO, it is not a service dog.

As it happens, a process that fits those criteria already exists, and on top of that it's about a hundred million billion times as important as the PAT is. OK, maybe I'm exaggerating just a LITTLE bit on the relative importance, but you get the idea. I'm talking about the court system, and the process by which judges determine whether a dog is an SD or not.

That's the one and only way to tell if a dog is legally an SD. I've read well over a hundred court decisions involving SDs at this point in time, and I haven't seen one single reference to ADI in any of them. And I haven't seen single reference to a PAT in a court decision either. Legally, those two things don't seem to exist. Of course some judge somewhere sometime might take a PAT into consideration, but I haven't seen it even though I've read all of the SD caselaw I've been able to locate.

So here's what I've been leading up to. (Remember, this is for the owner-trainers out there.)

* If you had to go to court tomorrow and pass the "judge test" in order to get certified, many of you - maybe most - would be told you'd be told "NO, YOUR DOG IS NOT A SD". I'm not saying that that's right or wrong, just that it's the way it is.

* I'm different. If my dog had to pass the "judge test", I wouldn't have the same problem. I'd likely be told "YES, YOUR DOG IS A SD". (That's assuming that he'd completed his training by then, which he hasn't yet.)

Sorry, I know that sounds arrogant as hell, but it's true. And to make matters worse, I'm not going to tell you WHY it's true. If you want to know the answer, start here: --> http://leagle.com The answer is hiding in plain sight: it comes up in case after case. Not in every single one, but frequently enough that it's obvious after reading relatively few cases.

So if you advocate for certification, keep in mind that it very well might be more like the process judges use than it is like the PAT. And don't be so darned sure that you'd pass.

Are you still in favor of certification?
[notify]
Nova

1184372
 
 
Barked: Sat Sep 28, '13 10:43am PST 
Lucy, that's my point. We can all agree that the SD/handler team I saw should in no way shape or form have been a SD/handler team, yet it is allowed under the ADA (or might be, depending on the Lucy vs. Cooper definition!). So, the ADA needs to change to exclude that SD team. Whether it's accomplished by certification or some other route, that's up for debate. But it's simply unacceptable for a handler to allow that to happen and should not be legal.

_______________________________________

Other subject:

This was in the NY Times yesterday!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/realestate/getting-a-d og-into-a-no-pet-building.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp

It brings up interesting points. There are huge grey areas. For example, the recovering alcoholic whose dog compelled her to go to the park and make friends. That's powerful. The line between long-term but temporary emotional trauma that manifests itself in impaired daily activities vs. alcoholism vs. a disability is so blurry that I can certainly empathize with everyone trying to do the right thing here. It's really tough. (That said, one of my friends just had her psychiatrist write her a note just so that she could move into no-pet housing with her dog. And she said well, even if I don't actually need him I really do feel happier when he's with me. Sheesh! So does everybody! No sympathy for her here. I really had to bite my tongue!)

That's a completely separate issue than certification though; I just thought the people participating in this discussion may be interested in reading that article, so I thought I'd pass it on here!

________________________________________

Yes, Cooper, I'm still in favor of certification. It doesn't have to be ADI though -- it sounds as though you've considered the legal system as a current form of ostensible "certification." Here's my reaction: if a judge wouldn't consider a lot of SDs out there to be SDs, should they really be out there being represented as SDs?

But like you I have a gazillion things on my to-do list today so I'll have to resume this discussion later! Have a great day everyone!
[notify]
Lucy Ribeiro

1300329
 
 
Barked: Sat Sep 28, '13 7:13pm PST 
Cooper my bad on not answering your question I cant read to well in the format and how small the fonts are here beyond the fact that so much is being posted so quickly.

Your question about the exams I think I got confused it was the test your talking about my bad for that. It was the basic skills assesment and temperment exams. I was just repeating what was told to me by the DOJ number I had called now if they told me incorrect information thanks for discussing that and letting me know. I always thought that if they give you a response it is true but appareantly that isnt right.

I might clarify my position on the requiring paperwork. I dont care whether they require paperwork or change the laws or do something else. I quite frankly dont know what they could do to weed out the fakers or other people out there, without say making it more difficult on SD teams. However with how difficult it is now especially being in a large city like LA which I am in. I dont know if there is anything they can do to make it any easier without say the concious of other people just knowing there dog isnt a working animal and say staying outside. However something needs to be changed but I dont know what will work just something needs to be changed.

Now with that all being said I did travel out to Seattle/Tacoma washington area and was amazed at the difference in peoples behaviors towards my SD. In the area of I was only asked is she a SD or not? Wasnt asked what she is trained to do for me ever. No one grabbed me and everyone was very nice it was a truly and amazing thing to see. Then again its a smaller town and alot less people with tiny little dogs who think they can bring them everywhere.

I however have been having some bad days Cooper my bad for letting that slip out upon you. Been having some bad medical issues.
[notify]
Beth

Hey! I hear- people landing- on the Moon!
 
 
Barked: Sat Sep 28, '13 9:06pm PST 
Lucy, I live in L.A. and I have a small breed service dog. I have a hard enough time dealing with customer service people who give me a raft of backwash over her being a "real" service dog. They live under the mistaken impression that all service dogs are Labs, German Shepherds and the like and look at someone like me who needs a medical alert service dog such as I do as some kind of faker.

If I had to worry about doing the whole certification thing to hand something over to make some idiot doorkeeper happy and all pumped up over being able to legally be a d*ck to me, I couldn't handle it.
[notify]
Silas

Loco
 
 
Barked: Sun Sep 29, '13 5:22am PST 
I live in Canada.
In Ontario, your dog must be in a vest/harness and you must have ID. The ID is generally a small credit card size card that sits in your wallet, and has a number that matches a tag on the collar and a picture of the team. I think this works well, and all the service dog handlers I know thinks it works well.

In all the times I have been out with a team, they have never been ask to see this ID card. We have been asked 'Is that a service dog?'; you say 'Yes' and move on.

I think having ID is a good safety for the handler. I heard a story of a handler that walked into a convenience store and was told to get out or the owners would call the cops. The handler told him to call, the police came looked at his ID and issued the store a fine.

I do have an opinion on the States and paperwork, but as I'm not American I'm sure many people feel I shouldn't have an opinion at all.
[notify]
Nova

1184372
 
 
Barked: Sun Sep 29, '13 7:57am PST 
Beth, the ID would make it loads easier for you! The reason people give you a hard time is because lots of people pass of their small yappy untrained dogs as SDs, WHICH HAVING A CERT WOULD SOLVE!! All you'd have to do is give an ID (if questioned) and that would be the end of it, rather than arguing with people. No arguing about whether the dog is a SD or not; the government says it is, so it is. Period. No possible argument. The fakers wouldn't have an ID. It makes things so much clearer.

In other words the reason you're in the position you're in is because IDs aren't required!

I really don't see how you can make your experience an argument against IDs!
[notify]
Lucy Ribeiro

1300329
 
 
Barked: Sun Sep 29, '13 10:55am PST 
Hey Beth I have a question for you in regards to your SD. When you enter into a business do you have your SD in a vest identifying it as a SD? Might be a stupid question but something as simple as a vest can get them to back off a little.

I get more trouble from the Security companies rather than the actual businesses. Its difficult because they seem to think they are as important as a cop which sadly they arent.

Also I do agree with Nova if you simply did get certified or got some type of small ID like a credit card size it would really help you out. It doesnt have to say your disability but it can only say its a SD just makes things a bit easier.

Like I said before I dont know if requiring paperwork is the right thing but something does in fact have to change because its ridiculous trying to get in sometimes. Also due to the growing number of people sneaking there little dogs inside places in purses or inside there coat or just trying to wait until the guard looks one way and walking in it makes it more difficult for you. I am lucky my SD is a Chocolate Lab so they stereotype works to my favor.
[notify]
  (Page 4 of 8: Viewing entries 31 to 40)  
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8