Fake service dogs

TahlzK

New Member
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
470
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Australia, QLD
While I wish dogs were allowed in more public areas, you'd have so many irresponsible people taking their dogs in and it's not worth the hassle for these companies and its not fair to some other people. Especially for those who have a fear of dogs!

I honestly think allowing dogs in to all public areas wouldn't be a good idea, as awesome as it would be to be able to take your dog everywhere.

Plus, lets not forget about the idiots who will let their dogs approach other dogs/bring dogs in that may not be good with dogs and are irresponsible.
 

Saeleofu

Active Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,036
Likes
0
Points
36
A bit off topic, but I'm curious. Is that because you feel it is the best choice for him? Or does your workplace pressure you into doing it?
I choose not to bring him. I never requested to bring him because it is not an appropriate place to bring a service dog. If I did request to, I could legally be turned down as it would be a fundamental alteration to the facility and/or direct threat to the animals I work with. Service dogs are not allowed everywhere - there are limits.
 

Flyinsbt

New Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
886
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Portland, OR
Most is not good enough. Everyone seems to think that taking the dog in public is easy. It's not, and the proofing (public access training) is the hardest part of training a service dog. Tasks are easy. Public access is what takes the longest and require the most effort, and what eventually washes a service dog out.
.
And some of you seem to think it's impossible to train a dog to behave in public. Yet in many other countries, it's a matter of course.

And yet again, I wasn't suggesting that the fake SD might therefore be just as good as the real SD. My non fake, non SDs, as I said, would be fine in any situation that didn't involve them ignoring food. (my guess would be that not all real SDs would be able to ignore food either.) Therefore, if I wanted to use them as fake SDs, it would behoove me to avoid doing so in places where food is likely to be dropped around them. ie; restaurants and grocery stores. But, as fakes, there would be no reason not to do so. Taking them onto, say, a bus, where the only thing they might have to deal with is being crowded, stepped on, etc; which is not something that bothers them, I wouldn't have to worry about their behavior. (this is hypothetical. As I said, my dogs are not taken places that dogs aren't allowed.)

If a person is faking that their dog is a service dog, they have the option to not take the dog into a situation that the dog can't handle. So, it just doesn't get the same stresses put on it as a real SD. I would roundly condemn someone who took a dog like my Tess into a restaurant, whether it were a real SD or fake, because the dog staring at people and barking if they didn't feed her would be disruptive and highly inappropriate. But if they only take the dog into situations where it can behave, then it just doesn't matter to me.
 

Flyinsbt

New Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
886
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Portland, OR
A UD/TDI dog that quietly strolls without notice is going to be less hurtful to you than some of my clients in Vegas who had doctor prescribed dogs. We were there to assist owner trained dogs but some days it was amazing how little they would listen and how hurtful these handlers could be to the cause and yet these were (sometimes "more") valid teams.
That particular dog (a Border Terrier, btw, so also easily carried by his owner) actually did belong to someone who I'd guess could qualify as disabled if she so chose (her joint problems definitely affect her movement). The only real difference between that dog and a real SD would be that the real SD is trained to perform tasks to help the handler. Which yes, technically still makes it a fake and illegal, but the dog's training is probably more extensive than most SDs, and the handler more disabled than some people who legitimately have SDs, so who is actually being hurt?
 

CharlieDog

Rude and Not Ginger
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
9,419
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Georgia
The problem is it doesn't matter. If the dog isn't an SD, it's still illegal, and breaking the law, and a felony.

It's not speeding. It's not even minor recreational drugs. It's a felony.
 

Dogdragoness

Happy Halloween!!
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
4,169
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Gillett/Flower Mound TX
While I wish dogs were allowed in more public areas, you'd have so many irresponsible people taking their dogs in and it's not worth the hassle for these companies and its not fair to some other people. Especially for those who have a fear of dogs!

I honestly think allowing dogs in to all public areas wouldn't be a good idea, as awesome as it would be to be able to take your dog everywhere.

Plus, lets not forget about the idiots who will let their dogs approach other dogs/bring dogs in that may not be good with dogs and are irresponsible.
That is true but there could be a policy in place where, much like unruly children (& even some Adults!) in some places, dogs who are unruly may also be asked to leave/be banned if thy are too much of a problem.
 

Dogdragoness

Happy Halloween!!
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
4,169
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Gillett/Flower Mound TX
The only thing that pisses me off is that dogs aren't allowed everywhere anyway :) If a dog is well behaved and acting appropriately I don't care where they are at all. and on the other hand, i don't care if the dog is an actual service dog, if it's not acting like it should, GTFO.
AMEN! Well said! :hail:
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
6,405
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Minnesota
Well, if you want to tell an arthritic retired gym teacher that it's "childish and selfish" for her to enjoy a little of her downtime at an agility trial by seeing the sights at the fair (with a dog that's trained well enough to be a therapy dog, as well as a UD), rather than twiddle her thumbs all day, then drive an hour each way on another day so she can see the fair, have at 'er. I'm not doing it.
:rolleyes: What does being an arthritic retired gym teacher have to do with anything? She couldn't crate the dog for a few hours? Please.
 

RBark

Got Floof?
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
961
Likes
0
Points
16
Regarding the whole "disability" definition thing, basically everyone uses the term "disabled" incorrectly.

http://www.painanddisability.com/di...valuation/vol4_no1/Disability_Evaluation.html


According to the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. Fourth Edition, IMPAIRMENT is defined as: "The loss, loss of use, or derangement of any body part, system, or function."

In the same Guides, DISABILITY is defined as: "A decrease in, or the loss or absence of, the capacity of an individual to meet personal, social, or occupational demands, or to meet statutory or regulatory requirements."

In the same individual, a permanent impairment of the dominant extremity, does not always produce a greater disability than the same permanent impairment of the non-dominant extremity.
To put it simply, people's mental disease, physical impairment, etc etc is defined as a impairment.

It becomes a disability when social forces are set up in such a manner that a person can not function the task required.

In other words, comments like "everyone has a disability these days" are not true. Just having an impairment does not qualify someone to be disabled.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
4,381
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Midwest
The problem is it doesn't matter. If the dog isn't an SD, it's still illegal, and breaking the law, and a felony.

It's not speeding. It's not even minor recreational drugs. It's a felony.
is it? I don't know. How many have been prosecuted for a felony? I have to reason that the impersonating a person with disability type stuff that gets prosecuted as a felon is for the more serious stuff, like faking it to hold fundraisers to profit from, or get disability checks and things of that nature.

If it is a felony, it's a ridiculous one. I can't imagine someone being labeled a felon for taking a dog into Walmart, I think it would be pretty easy to do away with that under the 8th amendment
 

Saeleofu

Active Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,036
Likes
0
Points
36
Regarding the whole "disability" definition thing, basically everyone uses the term "disabled" incorrectly.

http://www.painanddisability.com/di...valuation/vol4_no1/Disability_Evaluation.html




To put it simply, people's mental disease, physical impairment, etc etc is defined as a impairment.

It becomes a disability when social forces are set up in such a manner that a person can not function the task required.

In other words, comments like "everyone has a disability these days" are not true. Just having an impairment does not qualify someone to be disabled.
Bolded because you hit the nail on the head. BUT that's not the legal definition of "disabled." This is:

Sec. 12102. Definition of disability

As used in this chapter:

(1) Disability

The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)).

(2) Major Life Activities

(A) In general

For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

(B) Major bodily functions

For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.

(3) Regarded as having such an impairment

For purposes of paragraph (1)(C):

(A) An individual meets the requirement of “being regarded as having such an impairment†if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.

(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less.

(4) Rules of construction regarding the definition of disability

The definition of “disability†in paragraph (1) shall be construed in accordance with the following:

(A) The definition of disability in this chapter shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under this chapter, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter.

(B) The term “substantially limits†shall be interpreted consistently with the findings and purposes of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.

(C) An impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities in order to be considered a disability.

(D) An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.

(E)

(i) The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity shall be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures such as

(I) medication, medical supplies, equipment, or appliances, low-vision devices (which do not include ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses), prosthetics including limbs and devices, hearing aids and cochlear implants or other implantable hearing devices, mobility devices, or oxygen therapy equipment and supplies;

(II) use of assistive technology;

(III) reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or services; or

(IV) learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications.

(ii) The ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.

(iii) As used in this subparagraph

(I) the term “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses†means lenses that are intended to fully correct visual acuity or eliminate refractive error; and

(II) the term “low-vision devices†means devices that magnify, enhance, or otherwise augment a visual image.
from http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm#12102

Note that "(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3))." does not qualify someone for an SD, but it does prevent someone from discrimination in employment and the like when people assume someone has a disability.
 

CharlieDog

Rude and Not Ginger
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
9,419
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Georgia
is it? I don't know. How many have been prosecuted for a felony? I have to reason that the impersonating a person with disability type stuff that gets prosecuted as a felon is for the more serious stuff, like faking it to hold fundraisers to profit from, or get disability checks and things of that nature.

If it is a felony, it's a ridiculous one. I can't imagine someone being labeled a felon for taking a dog into Walmart, I think it would be pretty easy to do away with that under the 8th amendment
I don't know if it's ever been prosecuted as such, but pretending the dog is an SD, or putting a vest on the dog with SD patches is saying you're disabled, is faking a disability. Therefore, under the law, a felony.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
4,381
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Midwest
it's only a felony if you're charged and convicted of a felony :) Until then it's just illegal and I know the word felony conveys seriousness, but there's a world of difference between walking into a store with a dog and committing insurance fraud under the guise of a disability
 

Saeleofu

Active Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
9,036
Likes
0
Points
36
it's only a felony if you're charged and convicted of a felony :) Until then it's just illegal and I know the word felony conveys seriousness, but there's a world of difference between walking into a store with a dog and committing insurance fraud under the guise of a disability
However, they're both wrong, and people are jerks for doing it.
 

~Jessie~

Chihuahua Power!
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
19,665
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Central Florida
Everywhere I'm reading says it can be a misdemeanor, not a felony.

VII. Wrongful Impersonation of a Person Needing a Service Animal

Several states add further penalties for wrongfully impersonating someone who needs accommodations for a service animal. Missouri, for example, makes this a class C misdemeanor and makes the wrongdoer civilly liable for any damages. Should a person commit this same act again, he or she faces a class B misdemeanor for subsequent violations. MO ST 209.204.
In a similar vein in Colorado, a person faces a class 1 petty misdemeanor for using a blaze orange leash on a non-assistance animal. Texas also prohibits a person from using a harness or leash the type of which used by an assistance animal in order to represent that his or her dog is an assistance animal. V. T. C. A., Human Resources Code § 121.006.

The intent of these laws is clear: it is at the very least criminal to attempt to gain access and advantage by impersonating someone who relies on dog guides for his or her daily life. States are not necessarily providing benefits when they enact White Cane Laws or accommodation laws, but rather are putting someone with a disability in the position of a freely mobile person. One who takes advantage of this gains little sympathy in the eyes of the law.
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ddusassistanceanimal.htm#VII
 

frostfell

Kung Pow Fish
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,183
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Albany, New York
The problem is it doesn't matter. If the dog isn't an SD, it's still illegal, and breaking the law, and a felony.

It's not speeding. It's not even minor recreational drugs. It's a felony.
The point is, its not actually hurting anyone if the "faker dog" is perfectly well behaved and looks and acts in every way like the real thing, yet isnt. What the **** do you care? Get off your high horse! Your precious sensibilities are not the issue here
 

CharlieDog

Rude and Not Ginger
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
9,419
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Georgia
The point is, its not actually hurting anyone if the "faker dog" is perfectly well behaved and looks and acts in every way like the real thing, yet isnt. What the **** do you care? Get off your high horse! Your precious sensibilities are not the issue here
Actually I don't care as long as the dog is well behaved, which I already stated, but thanks for your asinine assumptions.

And since it's only a misdemeanor who cares then? Since it's not a felony and all to fake an SD. That's brilliant.

And really the issue here is that people are being downright douchebags over breaking the law because they don't care about the law? They don't agree with the law because it doesn't affect them?

It's ridiculous and belittling to assume that everyone who "fakes" an SD has a "well behaved" dog. That's not even the issue.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top