Service dogs - should certification be required?
- Thread starter Danefied
- Start date
Someone mentioned requiring certification to be like requiring jews to wear a yellow star.
I dont know...I get certification can be a problem, and there are many issues with making sure its fair etc. I dont really get though the idea of not wanting a SD to stand out....as if they are in a service dog only place, they already do you know? Why would a vest or certificate change that?
I dont know...I get certification can be a problem, and there are many issues with making sure its fair etc. I dont really get though the idea of not wanting a SD to stand out....as if they are in a service dog only place, they already do you know? Why would a vest or certificate change that?
For me personally there are days I don't care and days I do. Sheena and I are on a dart team for example. So every Tuesday we play at a different bar. Some teams are really good about leaving her be when she is in vest. They know that when the night is over I will take her outside afterwards, take her vest off and give her the Go Visit command. For these teams I don't care that Sheena is wearing a vest and is highly visible. But there are also a few teams that consistantly ignore the words on the vest. Constantly harass me with personal questions and if I refuse to answer they can get down right rude. I have had a few people tell me off royally when I refused to allow them to pet her when in vest. On these days I wish Sheena was more invisible since obviously the huge DO Not Pet sign on her vest does no good.
Many times no one even knows she is there. I have been in theaters, restraunts, buses and so on that when I get up to leave people are exclaiming in shock that Sheena was there. And she is highly visible with her white coat. Not everyone needs or wants their dog to be this visible as Rbark has stated.
For me the main issue is the certifacation. It will cause more work and stress on the disabled person yet accomplise nothing.
Many times no one even knows she is there. I have been in theaters, restraunts, buses and so on that when I get up to leave people are exclaiming in shock that Sheena was there. And she is highly visible with her white coat. Not everyone needs or wants their dog to be this visible as Rbark has stated.
For me the main issue is the certifacation. It will cause more work and stress on the disabled person yet accomplise nothing.
I would like to thank some for their thoughtful replies. Rbark.. I know nothing about you, BUT your arguments make me fall on the other side. Your arguments are not logical, they are heated and angry. People who argue with out facts, attack their questioners are often lying, and making things up.
The others in this thread who have provided logical and personal arguments have given me something to think about.
So if this is something that you deeply care about, as it seems, you might want to think on the fact that how you come across in print may be hurting your cause vs helping it.
The others in this thread who have provided logical and personal arguments have given me something to think about.
So if this is something that you deeply care about, as it seems, you might want to think on the fact that how you come across in print may be hurting your cause vs helping it.
So wait, just because she/he (I don't know which, sorry 
) is in your terms rude and angyyou become in favor of something most disabled people who use a SD don't want? Huh?
) is in your terms rude and angyyou become in favor of something most disabled people who use a SD don't want? Huh?
I never said I was in favor of no vest. I said I was in favor of no certifacation. And I listed why several times. I merely listed why some people would prefer to not have a vest on their dog and used some examples. Never said I was for or agianst it. In fact I think it should be up to the handler to make that decision. I prefer a vest for my dog, though at times it is useless, as the example above shows. But the next person may feel differently and it is not up to me to decide that for them.
This goes for all sides of the argument. Because honestly, there have been times when I have agreed with someone but their logic or reasoning is so flawed they bring out my devil's advocate. And while I mostly stay out of heated debates, it never ceases to amaze me how I can agree with someone's stance, but not they way they got there, and can then be ridiculed or bitched at. If your argument is full of fallacies, it doesn't really matter what side you are on.
So wait, just because she/he (I don't know which, sorry ) is in your terms rude and angyyou become in favor of something most disabled people who use a SD don't want? Huh?
) is in your terms rude and angyyou become in favor of something most disabled people who use a SD don't want? Huh?
I only know a few people who have used SD dogs. Not all were/are against it. Rbark never said, or proved that most were against it. All he/she said was I was wrong and bad for wanting it.
All their arguments made me think that his/her side of the argument was very weak. It has nothing to do with being rude to me in that it didn't bother me. Just being rude when people are asking honest questions is usually the response of a troll. Trolls only work if they are on the 'wrong' side of the argument.
I'm having a difficult time comprehending this accusation of lying. I've repeatedly referred everyone to www.ada.gov and to call them to find out the facts for themselves. I cannot conceive how that's illogical, nor can I conceive how that's arguing without facts.
As it is, I am one of the only people in this thread who has provided any facts or evidence in this thread. Nobody has to take my word for anything.
http://www.ada.gov/contact_drs.htm
That is the ADA contact website. All facts presented come from them. If you doubt it, don't take my word for it. Don't take Sael's word for it. Don't take Danefied's word for it.
Go to the website, call them and confirm these facts for yourself.
The only thing that weakens my argument is the fact that everyone in this thread is so opposed to what I am saying, so caught up with how I am saying it, so in denial of the facts that they will argue with me with opinions, with fantasy scenarios, call me arguing with my blinders on, call me a liar, accuse me of being one of the people with poorly trained service dogs...
They will do everything to counter my argument.....
Except call the ADA for the final word on this argument.
As it is, I am one of the only people in this thread who has provided any facts or evidence in this thread. Nobody has to take my word for anything.
http://www.ada.gov/contact_drs.htm
That is the ADA contact website. All facts presented come from them. If you doubt it, don't take my word for it. Don't take Sael's word for it. Don't take Danefied's word for it.
Go to the website, call them and confirm these facts for yourself.
The only thing that weakens my argument is the fact that everyone in this thread is so opposed to what I am saying, so caught up with how I am saying it, so in denial of the facts that they will argue with me with opinions, with fantasy scenarios, call me arguing with my blinders on, call me a liar, accuse me of being one of the people with poorly trained service dogs...
They will do everything to counter my argument.....
Except call the ADA for the final word on this argument.
More links... nobody has to take my word for anything.
www.ada.gov
http://www.assistancedogsinternational.org/
http://www.iaadp.org/
http://www.servicedogcentral.org/content/
www.ada.gov
http://www.assistancedogsinternational.org/
http://www.iaadp.org/
http://www.servicedogcentral.org/content/
But I am not apposed to the idea that they don't need certification. I am apposed to the way YOU have presented them.
They make it seem like you are lying, and trolling. I didn't say that was your intention... I just said how it seems on this side of teh screen.
I suggest you just think about it.
Its like when I argue about genetics and breeding. Sure all the info is there for people to look up. But people who aren't familiar with the arguments don't know where to look, or even what to look up. I grab quotes, provide links and help educate people, not alienate them.
I do get rude when people start to get rude to me. Its fun but it never helps the argument itself. So if you really care about the subject your best plan of action is to help people understand. Give them the tools to see your point of view.. not berate them for not seeing what you see. They do not stand where you stand.
They make it seem like you are lying, and trolling. I didn't say that was your intention... I just said how it seems on this side of teh screen.
I suggest you just think about it.
Its like when I argue about genetics and breeding. Sure all the info is there for people to look up. But people who aren't familiar with the arguments don't know where to look, or even what to look up. I grab quotes, provide links and help educate people, not alienate them.
I do get rude when people start to get rude to me. Its fun
but it never helps the argument itself. So if you really care about the subject your best plan of action is to help people understand. Give them the tools to see your point of view.. not berate them for not seeing what you see. They do not stand where you stand.
But I am not apposed to the idea that they don't need certification. I am apposed to the way YOU have presented them.
They make it seem like you are lying, and trolling. I didn't say that was your intention... I just said how it seems on this side of teh screen.
I suggest you just think about it.
Its like when I argue about genetics and breeding. Sure all the info is there for people to look up. But people who aren't familiar with the arguments don't know where to look, or even what to look up. I grab quotes, provide links and help educate people, not alienate them.
I do get rude when people start to get rude to me. Its fun but it never helps the argument itself. So if you really care about the subject your best plan of action is to help people understand. Give them the tools to see your point of view.. not berate them for not seeing what you see. They do not stand where you stand.
They make it seem like you are lying, and trolling. I didn't say that was your intention... I just said how it seems on this side of teh screen.
I suggest you just think about it.
Its like when I argue about genetics and breeding. Sure all the info is there for people to look up. But people who aren't familiar with the arguments don't know where to look, or even what to look up. I grab quotes, provide links and help educate people, not alienate them.
I do get rude when people start to get rude to me. Its fun
but it never helps the argument itself. So if you really care about the subject your best plan of action is to help people understand. Give them the tools to see your point of view.. not berate them for not seeing what you see. They do not stand where you stand.
This is post #30, the one you made:
You talk about how poorly I get across my message. But when I frequently get responses like yours, accusing me of having a poorly trained SD just because you dont agree with me, are you really surprised I get upset?
Before your post, I had not insulted anyone at all. I was passionate, and I mentioned that businesses were ignorant, but I had made no personal attacks.
It sounds like you should take your own advice as well.
I asked if you did. I didn't mean to imply that you did. From your lack of wanting to answer questions and knee jerk reaction it was a logical assumption. I wanted to know what YOU had to loose by this.
AND this isn't my argument its yours. What I mean is I have no training or stake in this argument. Your posts DID come across as rude before that one. If you look at the whippet thread, you will see how I argue when its 'my' argument.
AND this isn't my argument its yours. What I mean is I have no training or stake in this argument. Your posts DID come across as rude before that one. If you look at the whippet thread, you will see how I argue when its 'my' argument.
I'm afraid that your logic is lost on me. To me, something that is logical is something that is supported by concrete evidence. An Logical Assumption would be an assumption that is supported by concrete evidence. You had neither. You don't know if I have a Service Dog. You didn't know if I was disabled. You didn't know if I was a SD trainer. You didn't know if my dog ever had issues. You didn't know who my dog was. You didn't know anything about my role in service dogs. There's no basis, no logic, in assuming that I might have had a poorly trained dog. That is merely an suggestive ad hominem.
You're assuming a lot of things. Lack of wanting to answer questions? I've answered every question posed to me and more. Knee jerk reaction? I've been debating this issue for years, there's nothing knee jerk about it. If you perceived my posts to be rude, then you also should have perceived the responses to me as rude. It is, otherwise, bias.
Strong opinions do not equate to rudeness.
You're assuming a lot of things. Lack of wanting to answer questions? I've answered every question posed to me and more. Knee jerk reaction? I've been debating this issue for years, there's nothing knee jerk about it. If you perceived my posts to be rude, then you also should have perceived the responses to me as rude. It is, otherwise, bias.
Strong opinions do not equate to rudeness.