Recently I went to a large chain store to shop for a specialty item. My state licensed service dog was with me – as always. He wears on his collar a special tag issued by the 'dog police' (animal control) that identifies him clearly as a service dog.
Upon entering the store I was immediately confronted by a security guard who explained the store's no dog policy, except seeing eye dogs and service dogs. I summoned the manager. Asked him to look at the ID tag of my dog. He declared never to have seen a state issued service dog tag. Therefore, he refused to let the dog stay. Furthermore, he announced, that even if the ID were real he could not admit the dog because he does not wear a harness with large round service dog patch stuck on.
“How do you expect me to determine the true status of the dog,” he asked.
Just look at the dog and read it. It says there “XX service dog # 9”, I told him. He still balked. So, I called the police. They came, did not know much about service dogs at all, but concluded after closely examining the tag that this dog is indeed a service dog. They asked the manager 'kindly' to admit the dog without any further discussion.
The reason for the manager's stubborn refusal to admit a service dog became apparent in the course of the exchanges with the police.
About one week before my visit a woman with three small dogs (all on flex leashes) wearing impressive looking harnesses with big service dog patches (well, as big as could fit on a small dog) had visited the store. When challenged she gave the manager her spiel about ADA, the disabled and service dogs. He let her in. Unfortunately, the three service dogs quickly became a nuisance because of the long flex leashes and their incessant barking.
This example of 'bad' service dogs and an irresponsible dog owner clearly illustrates why it is so important to combat the abuse of service dog privileges by a relatively few inconsiderate, doting dog owners. It also shows what needs to be done.
Close the loopholes in the service dog sections of ADA.
The loopholes notably are the missing requirement for the disabled dog owner to be able to present some sort of official proof of disability.
Under ADA a disability of the owner is the prerequisite for the ability to claim a dog as service dog. The service dog privilege is dependent on the existence of a disability of the owner of the dog.
The other big invitation to fraud is the fact that under ADA service dogs need not prove in a test administered by an independent examiner (animal control, for example) which specific task they are trained to perform for their handler.
Any service dog should have to take and pass a service dog test administered by a trustworthy agency – not by a virtual service dog school.
As part of this test the dog would also have prove that he or she has mastered the art of being a 'good canine citizen'. That's quite basic.
Since service dogs have the privilege to go with their owner wherever he goes, they can be expected to behave accordingly and not to become a nuisance when in buildings, confined places and among large crowds. It is so simple and basic that one can safely assume that those who object to such a requirement most likely do so because they abuse the privileges established by ADA.Finally, once a dog passes the service dog test, his owner should receive some sort of identifying tag to be worn by the dog as proof of his service dog status.
If we could agree and convince lawmakers to modify and improve the provisions of ADA to this effect, we would have made a big step towards eliminating the rampant abuse of dog related ADA privileges. Such easy changes trump the alleged need to expand and make even broader and vaguer the catalog of disabilities and challenges that qualify as 'service dog' worthy.
And the owners of true and trusted service dogs that spend their life in service to their owners would encounter less hassle and challenges provoked by bad experiences with belligerent and aggressive owners of service dog impostors.
Some states have laws pertaining to service dogs that establish such procedures and requirements. California is one of them. But there are other states with similar provisions. Some have no regulations on state level whatsoever.
In our “Working Service Dog Report” we will explore and explain state by state regulations pertaining to service dogs.
Now, some of you might argue that federal law trumps local law. Those who do most likely got their information from one of the many website that hawk service dog harnesses and patches and useless IDs for the disabled. Some even offer certificates that attest to the successful completion of service dog training based on 12 or so individual rules for training and handling service dogs posted on the site. Much of it is worthless at best and a fraud on the gullible.
True, federal law supersedes local laws. However, ADA has a provision that the merchants of trinkets do not tell you about. Only those who read the ADA law themselves will most likely find it and take note.
The provision affirms the predominance of federal law – except when local laws are stricter and offer more and better protection.
Requiring that a dog take and pass a test before becoming an official, protected service dog certainly qualifies as a law stricter than any ADA provision. In addition, in California state licensed service dogs also enjoy much stronger protection under the Penal Code. It can be reasoned that at least in California state law trumps federal law when it comes to service dogs.
That is why my service dog is a state licensed, state sanctioned service dog.
PJJ
No comments:
Post a Comment