Controversy over therapy dogs....NY Times article

This is rediculous.  People need to take a step back and reserve the "service dog" status for those dogs that are truly trained in a specific service.  Sure my dogs are my babies and I would love to take them everywhere with me, but that completely downplays the services that seeing-eye dogs and such perform.  People are so self-centered and don't think beyond themselves sometimes.

I agree that people are self-centered and don't think beyond themselves. It's completely ridiculous.  I knew someone whose doctor wrote a note for him to have a service dog just because he wanted one and his apartment didn't allow them. He didn't really need it.  [:'(]

Some of these people are ridiculous, like the woman who stated that if restaurants don't let her bring her dog in, she can sue them. Clearly she just wants a lawsuit. I mean, if I wanted, I could get my doctor to write a letter stating that Max is my emotional service dog, and i'd have to be accomdated. However, he should not be everywhere I go. He's afraid of men, he 'd wander up to kids, etc. He probably has more training than most dogs in the country, and he is not fit to be allowed anywhere I am, so I can speculate that many other people's dogs aren't either.
I believe there should be something, whether it be a CGC, or another test that verifies that a dog is able to perform a certain level of obedience in order for it to be called a service dog, and have the rights of access that a service dog has.

I certainly would never try to pass Max off as a service dog so he could get into restaurants or stores etc.  But ... if I ever wound up having to live someplace where dogs weren't allowed, I'd have that Dr.'s note in a heartbeat.[]

Joyce & Max

I met a lady at the dog park a few months ago who was very proud of the fact that her JRT mix was a therapy dog.  She told me that it was so easy to get, that anyone could have their dog certified.  She said to just go see her phsycholgist and tell him that I was depressed and I could have both of my dogs certified as service dogs too.  Insane!

Okay, on the positive side, here is an article that appeared a few days ago in a local paper about kids at the local school embracing a true therapy dog. The rest of the world is just finding out what we already know, which is how good a dog can make you feel....

[linkhttp://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1147321656141800.xml?starledger?net&coll=1]Happiness is....[/link]

This really makes me angry!  When you look at the difficulties people with a legitimate need for service dogs still have, despite federal law, it just makes me all the more angry that people would take advantage of this!  The one and only emotional support dog I've met was as neurotic as the owner.  She was quivering and shaking and not comfortable being dragged all over the place.  I don't know if the dog was actually put into any training or not.  If she was, she was self trained.

I'll admit that I do much better with one of my dogs along, especially in a place where I don't know anyone, like a conference.  He acts as sort of an ice breaker and I never feel like a loser sitting off by myself - I have my dog to keep me company.  BUT, as much as I'd like my dog with me all the time, and despite the fact I'm receiving treatment for medical depression, I don't need a service dog.  Yes, it would probably make my life easier to have one, but I'm not in that bad of shape.  Someone who truly needs a dog, perhaps someone with agorophobia (fear of open spaces) or someone who has severe anxiety needs a dog.  I don't need one to get past a little bit of shyness.

People in this country need to learn the difference between "want to have" and "must have".

Well of course people feel better with a dog around.  That's been scientificly proven since, what?, the 80's.  And while I'd love to see a national program where well-trained dogs are allowed more places (say with a CGC certificate and positive ID, like TDI Inc does), I'm afraid this will cause more problems in the long run.  And yes, if you are disabled, you can take your service animal anywhere, but you are still responsible for any mess or problems your dogs causes.  And I'm afraid that if someone's untrained, emotional service dog bites someone in public it could have lasting negative effects on the people who really do need a highly trained, reliable service dog for some physical malady.
 
Of course a part of me does wonder if this is a reaction to NOT allowing pets in many residential places.  I can see where someone may have 2 service animals (one retired, one active) but the guy who has 5 cockers + 1 mixed breed and claims "he has severe chest pains from stress and has a note from a social worker saying that he relies on his pets for his emotional well-being. He is pursuing a case against his landlord."  had gone overboard.  Does anyone really need 6 dogs to make them feel better?

I certainly would never try to pass Max off as a service dog so he could get into restaurants or stores etc. But ... if I ever wound up having to live someplace where dogs weren't allowed, I'd have that Dr.'s note in a heartbeat.

 
I'm with you on that one Joyce.  I love my boys & take them with me whenever & wherever I can.  They ARE my emotional therapy dogs.  There's no better therapy than the joyous welcome home I get after a horrid day dealing with dad stuff.  
 
I can't speak for you guys but if I had 6 dogs, I'd be a basket case. ~L~  2 is fine for me.  Any more than that in my house & I get stressed.  That's just me.

While I agree that service dogs need to perform a service for the disabled individual, I do not believe that the service must only be for people with certain disabilities.  For example, people now have service animals that alert them to impending seizures.  That is what we commonly call an "invisible" disability, but one which certainly qualifies under ADA, and for which the use of service dogs is appropriate.  It is illegal for an individual to pass their pet off as a service animal, but it is not illegal for someone with a legitimate psychiatric disability to rely on a service dog.  They have been shown to be very helpful for individuals with PTSD and other disorders. 
It is illegal to ask what disability the dog is there to address.  The only thing a proprietor may ask is whether the dog is, in fact, a service animal.  So, you should be angrier at the people who wanted to deny a disabled person reasonable access to a public accomodation by "requiring" them to present the MD's letter.  The reason you will begin to see more service animals accompanying people who don't look disabled, is that they are now willing to stick up for themselves and get the help they need, or they have advocates who see the value in it for them, and have opted to help them.
I am appalled that you would think that a psychiatric disability is not every bit as "worthy" to receive help as any other kind of disability.
Just because a few bad apples may be willing to perpetrate this kind of dishonesty is not reason enough to deny a mentally ill or developmentally disabled person the use of a dog if they benefit from it, and the dog performs replicable and legitimate skills for them.
[linkhttp://www.iaadp.org]www.iaadp.org[/link]
[linkhttp://www.bazelon.org]www.bazelon.org[/link]
These two sites provide more info on this subject for those who are interested in exploring the legitimate use of service animals for psychiatric disabilities.
 

I should clarify that I don't have a problem with the use of an emotional support dog in legitimate cases.  I can think of a couple of people who might actually benefit if they'd actually take the time and responsibility to train a dog.  What makes me angry is all of the people who are using the federal law because they can, not because they need to.  This makes it so much harder for people who really need a service dog to get the help and respect they deserve.

I do agree with you there, Calypso.  I just hate to see anyone rush to judgment about anyone else's disabilities.  I am very close to someone whose disability isn't readily apparent, and it's heartbreaking to hear others make ignorant comments about people who have similar conditions, and know that he has heard them.  You never know who you might be standing next to, so it pays not to make any comment if you have nothing nice to say.

Well, Calypso said exactly what I was feeling, but much better.  []
 
 
This is what I was thinking about when I wrote my previous post.  The only way it could have been worse, was if it had been a child the service dog attacked.
 
[linkhttp://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/OtherBreedBites/October2004/Bouvierservicedogkillsyorkiesept04.pdf]http://www.understand-a-bull.com/BSL/OtherBreedBites/October2004/Bouvierservicedogkillsyorkiesept04.pdf[/link]

And while I'd love to see a national program where well-trained dogs are allowed more places (say with a CGC certificate and positive ID, like TDI Inc does), I'm afraid this will cause more problems in the long run.

 
Yikes, I really need to proof read better.  I should clarify that "this" was in regards to people declaring their dog is a service dog without proper training or a real need for a service dog.  I loved being able to take my dogs into Home Depot (they are both active and certified therapy dogs that go to nursing homes and the alzheimer's home monthly), but sadly they are no longer welcome there.  Probably due to another dog owner.