Fake service dogs

[TahlzK]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Saeleofu

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]

Originally Posted by AdrianneIsabel

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]

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]

Originally Posted by TahlzK

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]

Originally Posted by release the hounds

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!

[sassafras]

Originally Posted by Flyinsbt

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.

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]

Regarding the whole "disability" definition thing, basically everyone uses the term "disabled" incorrectly.

http://www.painanddisability.com/dis...valuation.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.

[release the hounds]

Originally Posted by CharlieDog

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