A rescue training service dogs?

Romy, nobody could not have said it any better. Excellent, excellent post! Not only about the evaluations, but the pitties too.

Honestly, too often people trying to train bully breeds to be service dogs are doing it ONLY for the PR. They aren't the ones using the service dogs, they're only wanting the dogs to get a good reputation. I was SO frustrated when I was trying to find a service dog candidate, and for every realistic suggestion I got at least one "Go to the shelter and pick out a pit bull, they make great service dogs!" Um, no. First off, any pit bull that even remotely fits the breed standards is going to be too short for my needs. That alone is reason enough for me to not use a bully breed. I've also heard horror stories of people traveling to areas with pit bull bans with their pit bull SDs and having them confiscated and destroyed - and only later do authorities ask questions. By that time it's too late, the dog's gone. It doesn't matter if the dog was the best SD that ever existed, it's gone now. Many people are also trying to claim their pets as SDs to get around breed bans.

I know some pit bulls make excellent service dogs. I've met multiple ones myself. But I, personally, don't want to take the risk for a breed that doesn't even fit my needs for a service dog just by virtue of its size. I can't think poorly of anyone else who also chooses to forego that hassle.


This is a bit of a rehash, but if you're good at evaluating, that's not even half the battle. After the dogs are out of the shelter and into homes, many more will wash out as real temperaments come out, many will come up with health problems, and many will be unsuitable for work for other reasons. I know one SD who nearly washed out due to severe allergies - and that dog may still wash out, depending on how treatment goes. Gavroche washed out initially because he has very mild hip dysplasia, and later on when his thyroid function dropped he developed temperament issues - those issues are now sorted out enough for him to be an excellent pet and to compete now and then, but his temperament is no longer even close to being service-dog quality.

So, you might take more than 1/100 out of the shelter to be candidates, but I doubt you'd have a 100% success rate with the selected dogs. I believe the 1/1000 number comes from how many dogs in the shelter would make it all the way to being an SD - including the ones that are not even considered as candidates.

Romy,

1. Did you read my whole comment? My comment was about why I think this program is a bad idea.

2. My dog is in training to be my service dog. He is a breed which some people mistake for a Pit Bull. He is extremely well suited for the tasks he is being trained to do. If I still need a SD when Saxon is retired, I will have an other Staffordshire Bull Terrier or I may even have a Pit Bull.

Oh! I was agreeing with your whole comment. Sorry if it seemed like I wasn't. Didn't get much sleep last night so probably should have quoted more. That was mostly for anybody who thinks SD pits should be pursued because it's great press for the breed.

ETA: And good luck with him! I really wish the public perception was better, because overall there are a lot of good candidates within the bully breeds.

I'm aware of what goes into the selecting, training, and working of a service dog. I work one and train them myself.


If the 1/1000 figure was for every dog in a shelter ever, then yes, it's probably more accurate, lol. I thought you were saying it was 1/1000 evaluated.

I might be remembering her post wrong, but I'm pretty sure she said 1/1000 evaluated.

Just the health screening would wipe out most potential candidates right there. The BYB dog gene pool that makes up the majority of shelter dogs isn't known for their health testing.

I had a long day and am really tired, sorry that I misread the tone of what you wrote!

They haven't put basic manners and training on the general population of their dogs...why make the jump to service dogs?? Very strange, I wonder who is doing the training.

I watch the show and I am on the fence with my opinion of them, but it's pretty glaring to me the dogs lack training. Their volunteers run the dogs out and let them pull all over and only when someone is interested in a dog do they evaluate it for things like DA. Seems to me if you want to adopt more dogs out, put some time in manners and not pulling on the leash.

Not saying Best Friends is the best place either, but they have small apartments that volunteers can use to house train and evaluate dogs.

Again I think that was a wonderful post Romy. The point is not directed at the few people who choose to train their pit bulls to be ESA or SD but more over the fact of the society we live in.

GD used to breed Shepherds in addition to the labs and goldens. They even tried out raising an accidental malinois/gsd litter, unfortunately none panned out. They did, however, get out of the GSD mostly because "we live in a different world, now".

The point is Romy is right, some people choose to have a SD but most already have an uphill battle enough and like it or not "dangerous" breeds often make life harder.

Very true for mobility and guide dogs. For a psych dog, medical alert/response dog, or a hearing dog... they do need to be physically sound, but it's not quite as strenuous as a guide or mobility dog's job.

An ESA is a pet for someone disabled by mental illness, they do not need specific training.

ESA is a whole different subject, because they don't have public access and aren't task trained. I wouldn't be too worried about a rescue training rescue dogs to have good basic house manners so they could be ESAs for people.

The psych, med alert/response, etc. is just as serious and needs to be taken just as seriously as mobility and guide dogs. Especially the hearing dogs. They all are held to the same standard of behavior in public and need to show consistency in performing their tasks, which is the hard part. It's easy to put tasks on a dog once they hit the level where they're good for public access anywhere.

Yes, I know, I was responding to AdrianneIsabel re: ESAs.

I don't think I'm being clear. I'm NOT saying that psych dogs, med alert/response, and hearing dogs are any less legitimate (or should be held to a different standard) than mobility are guild dogs. I was saying, on the health aspect of choosing a candidate, mobility and guide dogs have a more physically strenuous job. A fairly average dog, structure wise, wouldn't have problems being a psych, hearing, or med alert/response dog. A mobility or guide dog need to be extremely well built to have a long working life.

I think we're all well aware of ESA and that was my point.

However, I don't think I would ever choose a dog of lesser health for a working dog of any type of work given the choice.

SDs should be health tested no matter what task they are to perform. The last thing you want is for someone's lifeline to become seriously ill when it's still young and then have to start the whole process over again!

ESAs are a completely different story, almost any dog can be an ESA. They do not have public access rights and do not need to be trained to do specific tasks.

AdrianneIsabel, I read your previous post as you thinking that ESAs and SDs were on the same level regarding rights, public access, etc. I have not talked to most of you before this week - I have no idea who knows what regarding the laws. I know what the laws are.

I'm not at all saying that you should go get a dysplastic dog for a medical response dog, or anything even remotely close to that. Personally, I would never use a dog with less than excellent rated hips for guide or mobility work ("extremely well built to have a long working life"), nor would I recommend anyone use a dog with less than excellent rated hips for guide or mobility work. However, I wouldn't mind using a dog with good rated hips ("A fairly average dog, structure wise") for medical alert/response, hearing alert, psych, etc. I completely agree with all potential service dogs being health tested. I hope that makes more sense.

PSDs need to have the most stable temperament of all SDs. They CANNOT freak out when their handler is freaking out. All service dogs need a stable temperament, yes, but PSDs the most. A dog can have a stable temperament and still be so sensitive to his handler's emotional state that he's make a terrible PSD, while still making an awesome mobility dog. Logan's temperament is actually pretty perfect for a PSD - he is aware of people's emotional states, but he doesn't over-react. He'll come and offer himself for petting when someone's crying, and he'll come interrupt me when I'm upset (he's more aware of me than anyone else in my family...he interrupted me several times while I was watching Torchwood lol). He doesn't do PSD work, he does more guide and mobility work, though it is very good to have a stable dog when I'm having a sensory shutdown and getting extremely irritated by every person we pass. He just continues with his work.

I would be less inclined to get a PSD candidate from a shelter just for the temperament issues. Not that there aren't dogs there that would make excellent PSDs, but when you're owner-training it's all about stacking the odds in your favor. Knowing the temperament of a dog's parents can give you a HUGE clue about your pup's future temperament. Logan's basically a larger version of his sire (in looks and the way he acts, from the short time I got to interact with his sire and pictures I continue to see).

The post that you quoted I was talking physically, not mentally. I concur that PSDs must have the most stable temperament.

Just for the record, I don't know much about service dogs, but I am a little confused as to why you would discount a dog with Good hips for guide or mobility work, or why you would think that a dog with good hips has "average" structure.

One, a dog with good or excellent hips can have terrible structure. Their front could be straight, their shoulders too narrow, they could have elbow dysplasia, they could have a ewe neck or slip hocks- and still have perfectly fine hips- especially if they are tested young (around 2). A dog who is tested Fair could have perfectly good structure, with looser hips than most, but I'm saying that a dog with Fair hips and consistent and balanced body structure everywhere else would be a better choice than a dog who lucked out on getting Excellent hips and has a ewe neck. You also need to take into account the dog's siblings- did the rest of the litter rate Fair or lower and one puppy got the jackpot of Excellent hips? If that was the case I'd have to wonder if the x-rays were somehow misleading.

Not that I'm advocating that Service Dogs shouldn't be thoroughly health tested, but I'm just saying that there is more to a structurally sound dog than hips. I would tend to agree that someone should be very wary of using a service dog who didn't pass OFAs, but we need to remember that Fair and Good are still passing grades- and shouldn't cause the dog any hip-related issues in its life. I mean, I am still very cautious and have never used a Fair dog myself in breeding, but I guess my point is that a dog with Fair hips isn't the end of the world. Certainly not all dogs with Excellent hips are superb representatives of their breed or are even healthy dogs in general- you have to take into account the whole dog whenever you're selecting a working partner or a breeding prospect.

I just realized that this was entirely off topic and I apologize- didn't read through the whole thread.

I'm not wording things well enough today. I'll have to come back to this thread tomorrow when I've had more sleep. In the meantime, I'm sorry for the confusion I've been causing - hoping I can clear it up tomorrow.

Adrianne answered this, about the location of the rescue (the US).

In Canada, where I see you are, yes, there are standards and testing. I'm not sure all what though .

US doesn't have any (the dog must be task trained, well behaved, housebroken, and the handler must have a disability that the dog mitigates). I think we eventually WILL have some formal standards and testing in place, because fakers and poorly trained dogs/handlers are ruining it for everyone else.

I'm not sure what Canada has, either. Australia seems to be moving towards standardized certification, or at least parts of it are. I think the UK is program dogs only (not sure though).



Very, very true. You MUST look at the whole dog. Not just the whole dog's structure, but the WHOLE dog as in structure, health, temperament, etc.