My Friend's "therapy Dog"

[Dxenion]

Just reread the email from my friend telling me about it. She says her dog is registered through this organisation in the USA : http://www.nsarco.com/

If you can do it over there legally and no one is getting disadvantaged then I say why not.

A quote from a US forum discussing NSAR.

"Yes, You Can Take Your Dog or Cat With You!

It's no secret that many businesses simply aren't pet-friendly, even

though most of the population is. A large number of our clients

register their dogs (cats and other animals) as Certified Service

Animals or Emotional Support Animals (ESAs) not just to accompany them

into stores, restaurants, motels, or on airline flights (for no extra

cost), but to successfully qualify for housing where pets aren't

allowed." http://www.nsarco.com/

2. By law, "Service animal means any guide dog, signal dog, or other

animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the

benefit of an individual with a disability, including, but not limited

to, guiding individuals with impaired vision, alerting individuals

with impaired hearing to intruders or sounds, providing minimal

protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, or fetching dropped

items." 28 CFR 36.104 (Americans with Disabilities Act).

Emotional support animals are not now, nor

have they ever been recognized as service animals.

"Animals whose sole function is to provide emotional support, comfort,

therapy, companionship, therapeutic benefits, or to promote emotional

well-being are not service animals." -- US Department of Justice

NSAR is a well known organisation in the US (well known for selling anyone a service animal kit without any background checks). They proclaim to register your ESA so that you can take it where pets aren't allowed yet the US Department of Justice does not recognise ESA as service animals. Persons with kits from NSAR and claiming their ESA as a SA for purposes of gaining access to public areas are breaking the law in the US. Many service providers don't challenge the person, even though they have the right to do so, therefore persons with ESA continue to access areas they are not supposed to be in.

To sum it up, in the US an ESA is not classed as a SA so what they are doing is illegal. ESAs are not recognised here (for the purposes of accessing public areas) but Psychiatric Support Dogs (PSDs) are. A whole different kettle of fish.

In Australia there is an Act in each state that covers educational facilities and dog access. From memory specifically relating to NSW, pet dogs are not allowed unless the person has permission in writing from management. Some facilities might set their own rules with regard to Therapy Dogs but the DDA (or QLD, VIC or SA state law) protects the rights of access for disabled persons (disabled as defined by the DDA) accompanied by an AD.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Dxenion

[RubyStar]

Well, that's America for you!

Happens here too, although to a lesser degree.

To me the principle of having your pet called a 'therapy dog' for your convenience is no different to taking a disabled car space because that's convenient to you.

Some people need a wake up call.

Sorry I don't understand at all why this is the case, and did not expect this reaction from the people here. What harm does this do to anyone or anything (ie the dogs)? It's not like a capable person taking the spot of a disabled person and thus depriving them of the resource... Therapy dogs are trained - perhaps not professionally by an accredited association, but if they all had to be, then many more people would have to go without. The fact is there are lots of studies that demonstrate the positive effects of dog ownership, and if you're a little more sensitive to certain things for whatever reason (genetic or due to experiences), having that extra confidence and support from the dog can make the difference between a person being able to live a relatively normal life vs drain our gov systems for welfare etc.

I won't go into detail, but I went through some pretty horrible things a while back, and my dog was like a black hole who could just absorb everything negative and still miraculously pump out positivity. I was refered to professional help by my GP because I didn't want to go on medication, and she quickly realised that the dog was a massive help. She wrote me a letter that meant I could have my dog in lots of social situations where others couldn't - for example at uni etc. We also had a guide dog on campus - there's a huge difference but dogs are amazing like that - they can perform a variety of tasks for their humans.

It was not a guide dog, it was a therapy dog, and it stopped me from needing to go on medication. Time heals most wounds, and sure enough, I have mostly healed, but my dog just bought me that extra time, stopped me failing uni and kept me on track.

Trust me, I understand the emotional and mental healing powers of a canine companion. I got Ruby in a very low point in my life. She was my saviour, but she had to stay at home while I worked The OP was talking about a woman who conned her doctor into thinking she had severe anxiety that she needed her dog everywhere, and admitted that it was basically a con. That is not right! Assistance dogs should be accredited (whether it was trained with an association or not I have no issue with) and be for people who actually do need them. Not saying you personally didn't, I am talking about the OP's friend.

[Guest HarperGD]

A con? Jesus Christ.

I admit my first post gave off some misinformation. I have since corrected myself. If her doctor thinks she needs the dog with her, then who is anyone else to judge?

And if NSARCO are making 100s of people break the law then perhaps the laws should be enforced. That's the fault of the airlines and other organisations, not the people who own the dogs.

:rolleyes:

I'll leave this thread alone now. Don't need to cause any more trouble :p

EDIT: Jacquie, I'm glad your doggy was able to help you through a difficult time. Doggies are good for that

Edited July 25, 2011 by HarperGD

[Greytmate]

Well, that's America for you!

America doesn't have a monopoly on liars.

A con? Jesus Christ.

I admit my first post gave off some misinformation. I have since corrected myself. If her doctor thinks she needs the dog with her, then who is anyone else to judge?

And if NSARCO are making 100s of people break the law then perhaps the laws should be enforced. That's the fault of the airlines and other organisations, not the people who own the dogs.

:rolleyes:

I'll leave this thread alone now. Don't need to cause any more trouble :p

EDIT: Jacquie, I'm glad your doggy was able to help you through a difficult time. Doggies are good for that

So what is wrong with your friend?What is her disability? If she admitted to you that she asked her doctor for the letter because she is worried about losing her dog, then perhaps she lied to the doctor, or perhaps the doctor is dodgy.

This isn't about the ''right'' to take your dog everywhere. It is about intentionally abusing a law set up to help disabled people. Whatever spin you want to put on it.

[Are You Serious Jo]

People do manipulate the system and unfortunately it is going to impact those who have a genuine need. Pers and PF said it all though, couldn't agree more.

[poodlefan]

A con? Jesus Christ.

I admit my first post gave off some misinformation. I have since corrected myself. If her doctor thinks she needs the dog with her, then who is anyone else to judge?

And if NSARCO are making 100s of people break the law then perhaps the laws should be enforced. That's the fault of the airlines and other organisations, not the people who own the dogs.

:rolleyes:

I'll leave this thread alone now. Don't need to cause any more trouble :p

EDIT: Jacquie, I'm glad your doggy was able to help you through a difficult time. Doggies are good for that

If the friend's concern about her dog is so great that she cannot bear to be parted from it, it sounds like the dog is the cause of the mental health problem, not the therapy required. Frankly counselling sounds a lot more sensible than enabling an over attachment that's going to end one day for certain.

If a dog can be assessed as a 'therapy dog' simply for its ability to breathe, then the person that should be assessing it should have some mental health qualifications, not be a GP. Let's face it, we all love our dogs, most of us can think of a time in which they helped us get through the day but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be able to have carte blanche on where they are taken, particularly without the kind of training that many accredited dogs receive.

HarperGD, perhaps you need to stop and think that people aren't criticising you and don't know your friend. No need to take it personally.

[loveretrievers]

I think the set up is great they have for therapy dogs. It's been a while back I watched a show where this ladys dog would start behaving differently right before she had a seizure. So now she uses the dog as a therapy dog. This dog may not qualify for everyone but for it's owner was definitely a treasure and could save her life. Pets can be very in tuned to their owners. Anyone who has loved a dog knows that.

As for this lady registering her dog as a therapy dog, I say if she needs her dog with her I can't blame her!

[poodlefan]

I think the set up is great they have for therapy dogs. It's been a while back I watched a show where this ladys dog would start behaving differently right before she had a seizure. So now she uses the dog as a therapy dog. This dog may not qualify for everyone but for it's owner was definitely a treasure and could save her life. Pets can be very in tuned to their owners. Anyone who has loved a dog knows that.

As for this lady registering her dog as a therapy dog, I say if she needs her dog with her I can't blame her!

A dog that detects fits is a legitimate 'service dog' IMO and somewhat different to a dog that doesn't 'do' anything for its owner beyond normal pet behaviour.

[Lady Flying Furball]

I think the set up is great they have for therapy dogs. It's been a while back I watched a show where this ladys dog would start behaving differently right before she had a seizure. So now she uses the dog as a therapy dog. This dog may not qualify for everyone but for it's owner was definitely a treasure and could save her life. Pets can be very in tuned to their owners. Anyone who has loved a dog knows that.

As for this lady registering her dog as a therapy dog, I say if she needs her dog with her I can't blame her!

A dog that detects fits is a legitimate 'service dog' IMO and somewhat different to a dog that doesn't 'do' anything for its owner beyond normal pet behaviour.

Therapy should perhaps not be defined by the dog's behaviour but instead the therapeutic effects it has for the person it assists...afterall THERAPY is the defining term...

[poodlefan]

Therapy should perhaps not be defined by the dog's behaviour but instead the therapeutic effects it has for the person it assists...afterall THERAPY is the defining term...

Sorry but all pets are 'theraputic'. The crux of the issue, as far as I can concerned, is why some owners need their dogs with them no matter where they go. For me, the answer has to be be something other than "because having Fido with me makes me feel better".

If that were the case, we'd all have 'therapy dogs'.

Edited July 25, 2011 by poodlefan

[tdierikx]

My brother has a disability, and has had his own dog trained as an assistance dog - this allows him to travel on public transport and on aeroplanes with his dog by his side (or at his feet).

In Australia the rules allowing animals to travel everywhere with their human are pretty tough - they make you jump through a lot of hoops, insist you disclose details about your disability and waive your right to privacy about same before allowing you to travel on certain forms of transport... and taxi/bus drivers can still discriminate whether they allow an assistance dog on board if another person objects (including said driver). They don't necessarily have ALL of the rights that a Guide Dog has in that regard...

My brother's dog is usually a big hit when he goes on planes - all of the staff usually bend over backwards trying to get a cuddle or a photo with him... *sigh*

T.

[WreckitWhippet]

In my opinion, "therapy dog" has to be one of the most abused terms around for selfish dog owner's personal reasons. We've seen good examples of it here in the past.

Someone's over dependence on their pet cheapens the very real work done by trained dogs for folk who rely on them for a range of reasons.

Cheeses me off quite frankly to see access to all areas for such dogs abused by people who just want to take their pets everywhere.

The fact that you love your pet and have issues with separation form it should not of it itself entitle you to special treatment.

Rant over.

Ain't that the truth. Buy your own stickers, whack a vest on the dog and scream blue murder at anyone who dare question you " therapy " dog

Edited July 25, 2011 by ReadySetGo

[jacqui835]

In my opinion, "therapy dog" has to be one of the most abused terms around for selfish dog owner's personal reasons. We've seen good examples of it here in the past.

Someone's over dependence on their pet cheapens the very real work done by trained dogs for folk who rely on them for a range of reasons.

Cheeses me off quite frankly to see access to all areas for such dogs abused by people who just want to take their pets everywhere.

The fact that you love your pet and have issues with separation form it should not of it itself entitle you to special treatment.

Rant over.

Ain't that the truth. Buy your own stickers, whack a vest on the dog and scream blue murder at anyone who dare question you " therapy " dog

I really do not understand where people are coming from in this thread. Special treatment? Abusing the system? You get to take your dog with you to a few extra places - Idon't understand how that is abusing the system or inconveniencing anyone else. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who have dogs who are very well trained and wouldn't cause any trouble accompanying their owners in more situations than what they're currently allowed to. If anything the rest of the people with well-trained dogs are being ripped off - you're not allowed to take your dog anywhere in Australia because people are worried it will attack someone or make them sick or something I don't even know what the problem is. Now I understand completely if the dog is not trained and is dangerous or even just a nuisance to the people around it, but with every therapy dog I've ever seen, that was not the case. The dog isn't guiding the person, but in my case, he just used to walk along next to me, lie down during my lectures/tutorials and play with people at lunch time (who by the way, wanted to play with him). How is that a problem, for anyone?

There are some people in society who are more affected and sensitive than others, and so when their family members die, become alcoholics or drug addicts, their partners abuse them and/or they get kicked out of home by said alcoholic parent, they struggle to cope. There are plenty of people who end up addicted to anti-depressants, I didn't want to be one of them but I was told I wasn't receptive to therapy without the drugs. If these people happen to have well-trained dogs who stop them needing medication (which by the way is subsidised by your tax $'s so costs you money), why would anyone want to discourage them from being allowed to have their dogs with them when it doesn't hurt anyone?

Maybe everyone here is stronger and gets over their problems on their own (because I know everyone faces their own challenges and hardships), but I wasn't. It would have cost everyone a lot more money (because our gov. will try it's hardest to stop you hurting yourself or worse) if I hadn't of been allowed to have my dog. Plus, there's just no way I would have made it through uni or have been able to hold down a job - so I wouldn't have the job I have now which has meant that I now pay tax myself and have the means to contribute to society.

No-one here has explained why they think therapy dogs shouldn't be allowed or should be much more strictly regulated - what harm do they currently cause?

[Bullyisious]

Jesus she is taking a dog in a taxi, what a dirty rooten theif!!

If I could take my dog more places i would. I have been asked to leave a few places that I brought her.

Good on your friend i say :D

[persephone]

jacqui - I don't think you are actually reading and understand what folks are writing.

Someone's over dependence on their pet cheapens the very real work done by trained dogs for folk who rely on them for a range of reasons.

Cheeses me off quite frankly to see access to all areas for such dogs abused by people who just want to take their pets everywhere.

The fact that you love your pet and have issues with separation form it should not of it itself entitle you to special treatment.

Assistance dogs should be accredited (whether it was trained with an association or not I have no issue with) and be for people who actually do need them

This isn't about the ''right'' to take your dog everywhere. It is about intentionally abusing a law set up to help disabled people.

I

if the friend's concern about her dog is so great that she cannot bear to be parted from it, it sounds like the dog is the cause of the mental health problem, not the therapy required.

Sorry but all pets are 'theraputic'. The crux of the issue, as far as I can concerned, is why some owners need their dogs with them no matter where they go. For me, the answer has to be be something other than "because having Fido with me makes me feel better".

If that were the case, we'd all have 'therapy dogs'.

No One here that I can see is saying one thing against Dogs who provide balance, dogs who are detecting pre seizure activity, monitoring diabetics for hypos, detecting heightened anxiety levels and leading someone to a quiet place ..all this and more is a wonderful service which these trained dogs provide.

However, someone who feels they 'must' have their dog with them somewhere at all times ..and gets it declared a 'therapy dog' to allow them to do so , is being dishonest .. That's all.

[poodlefan]

I really do not understand where people are coming from in this thread. Special treatment? Abusing the system? You get to take your dog with you to a few extra places -

Exactly. While everyone else has to leave theirs at home. This is a pet dog we're talking about here. It has had none of the hygiene and other training service dogs receive.

I don't understand how that is abusing the system or inconveniencing anyone else.

This pet owner can now waltz in to any establishment (including places that serve food) with her dog while all other pet owners are expected to obey the "no dogs allowed" signs. Yet you don't think a person who's 'disability' is the fact she doesn't want to leave her dog at home isn't abusing the system.

I'm sure there are plenty of people here who have dogs who are very well trained and wouldn't cause any trouble accompanying their owners in more situations than what they're currently allowed to.

No kidding. Most of us aren't prepared to have our pets certified to enjoy the same privileges as guide dogs in order to accomplish it though.

If anything the rest of the people with well-trained dogs are being ripped off - you're not allowed to take your dog anywhere in Australia because people are worried it will attack someone or make them sick or something I don't even know what the problem is.

I wonder if this person has trained her dog that it cannot defecate until commanded to do so.

Your issue Jacqui is that you are taking this subject personally. Dogs are a problem for people who are allergic to them, don't like them, or are expected to clean up after them if they behave inappropriately in public places. The law makes an exception for dogs who perform important services for their owners. Most pet owners are happy to respect the difference between their pet and such a dog. Most, but not all.

I've seen a case on TV where a mother objected to the fact that her son's 'therapy dog' was not allowed in his classroom. The 'therapy dog' in question was a pet JRT - service performed? Son liked dog.

If these people happen to have well-trained dogs who stop them needing medication (which by the way is subsidised by your tax $'s so costs you money), why would anyone want to discourage them from being allowed to have their dogs with them when it doesn't hurt anyone?

Because they expect the same rights as owners of genuine service dogs but don't have the same reliance on the animals. And because the animals are not trained or certified in any 'assistance' role.

Maybe everyone here is stronger and gets over their problems on their own (because I know everyone faces their own challenges and hardships), but I wasn't. It would have cost everyone a lot more money (because our gov. will try it's hardest to stop you hurting yourself or worse) if I hadn't of been allowed to have my dog. Plus, there's just no way I would have made it through uni or have been able to hold down a job - so I wouldn't have the job I have now which has meant that I now pay tax myself and have the means to contribute to society. No-one here has explained why they think therapy dogs shouldn't be allowed or should be much more strictly regulated - what harm do they currently cause?

The 'harm' is that if the system is abused, those with a genuine requirement for an assistance dog will suffer the consequences. The unfairness of it is that some people are prepared to work a system for their own reasons while everyone else respects it. It angers me the same way that perfectly able bodied people obtaining disability benefits or parking stickers does.

The law provides for exceptions for assistance dogs. Seeing those exceptions manipulated and cheapened by pet dog owners doesn't sit well with me when the owner seeminlgy has no genuine requirement to have the dog with them 24.7

If the person who is the subject of this discussion chooses on occastion to leave the dog with others or at home for her own convenience (eg. going to the movies or out with friends) then you really have to question her need to take the dog into 'no dogs allowed' places when it suits her.

No one here appears to have issues with therapy dogs gaining access to places (I'd be surprised if they did). What's cheesing some people off is seeing someone using the 'therapy dog' privileges for a pet because it suits them to do so.

Edited July 26, 2011 by poodlefan

[jacqui835]

I really do not understand where people are coming from in this thread. Special treatment? Abusing the system? You get to take your dog with you to a few extra places -

Exactly. While everyone else has to leave theirs at home. This is a pet dog we're talking about here. It has had none of the hygiene and other training service dogs receive.

I don't understand how that is abusing the system or inconveniencing anyone else.

This pet owner can now waltz in to any establishment (including places that serve food) with her dog while all other pet owners are expected to obey the "no dogs allowed" signs. Yet you don't think a person who's 'disability' is the fact she doesn't want to leave her dog at home isn't abusing the system.

I'm sure there are plenty of people here who have dogs who are very well trained and wouldn't cause any trouble accompanying their owners in more situations than what they're currently allowed to.

No kidding. Most of us aren't prepared to have our pets certified to enjoy the same privileges as guide dogs in order to accomplish it though.

If anything the rest of the people with well-trained dogs are being ripped off - you're not allowed to take your dog anywhere in Australia because people are worried it will attack someone or make them sick or something I don't even know what the problem is.

I wonder if this person has trained her dog that it cannot defecate until commanded to do so.

Your issue Jacqui is that you are taking this subject personally. Dogs are a problem for people who are allergic to them, don't like them, or are expected to clean up after them if they behave inappropriately in public places. The law makes an exception for dogs who perform important services for their owners. Most pet owners are happy to respect the difference between their pet and such a dog. Most, but not all.

I've seen a case on TV where a mother objected to the fact that her son's 'therapy dog' was not allowed in his classroom. The 'therapy dog' in question was a pet JRT - service performed? Son liked dog.

If these people happen to have well-trained dogs who stop them needing medication (which by the way is subsidised by your tax $'s so costs you money), why would anyone want to discourage them from being allowed to have their dogs with them when it doesn't hurt anyone?

Because they expect the same rights as owners of genuine service dogs but don't have the same reliance on the animals. And because the animals are not trained or certified in any 'assistance' role.

Maybe everyone here is stronger and gets over their problems on their own (because I know everyone faces their own challenges and hardships), but I wasn't. It would have cost everyone a lot more money (because our gov. will try it's hardest to stop you hurting yourself or worse) if I hadn't of been allowed to have my dog. Plus, there's just no way I would have made it through uni or have been able to hold down a job - so I wouldn't have the job I have now which has meant that I now pay tax myself and have the means to contribute to society. No-one here has explained why they think therapy dogs shouldn't be allowed or should be much more strictly regulated - what harm do they currently cause?

The 'harm' is that if the system is abused, those with a genuine requirement for an assistance dog will suffer the consequences. The unfairness of it is that some people are prepared to work a system for their own reasons while everyone else respects it.

The law provides for exceptions for assistance dogs. Seeing those exceptions cheapened by pet dog owners doesn't sit well with me when the owner has no genuine requirement to have the dog with them 24.7

If the person who is the subject of this discussion chooses on occastion to leave the dog with others or at home for her own convenience (eg. going to the movies or out with friends) then you really have to question her need to take the dog into 'no dogs allowed' places when it suits her.

I still do not understand, and your posts seem a tad vague. Exceptions cheapened, disrespecting the system - where is the actual harm? If anything, the more people see of dogs, the more they realise it's the training that makes a good dog and the more the general public acknowledges that the current standards against them are quite harsh. What do you mean by hygiene? My dog had to be wormed and up to date on vaccinations - what more do they need? You can't really catch anything else from a dog... My dog was toilet trained and doesn't go whilst on lead. I have never seen or heard of a therapy dog defecating indoors - that sort of thing would likely make the news. These dogs are still trained - they're just not trained to be guide dogs. With therapy dogs timing can be a very sensitive factor and the fact is they often already somehow know what is required of them, so as long as they're not a danger or an annoyance to anyone else, what exactly is the problem? These dogs do no harm to anyone else and make a huge difference to the lives of their owners. Dogs used to spend all their time with their handlers and vice versa - and it can work.

My dog wasn't allowed into restaurants anyway - I never tried but I am confident I would have been shooed away. Everyone knows what a guide dog is, and when they see a large doberman just on a usual lead (no harness etc) well no-one ever mistook him for a guide dog... How are they disrespecting the system - and what are the negative consequences of this supposed disrespect? Yes we used the system to our advantage - but how did it hurt anyone else and how was it bad for guide dogs? I have already talked about the ways the general population benefited from me having greater access to my dog and I'm confident I'm not the only one.

[Kavik]

jacqui

The ones we have problems with are the pets NOT trained for any assistance or therapy role as in the OP. If it is not specially trained, just a pet, how do you know it is well behaved? Or even toilet trained at all? Dogs are not clean - they lie in the dirt, roll in everything imaginable, shed hair. Who knows when the dog last had a bath?

If the dog smells, goes to the toilet in public and behaves badly and is said to be a 'therapy dog' it will make real therapy and assistance dogs who have been trained and certified look bad and may make it more difficult for them to get access when their owners really need them to be there.

[poodlefan]

I still do not understand, and your posts seem a tad vague. Exceptions cheapened, disrespecting the system - where is the actual harm? If anything, the more people see of dogs, the more they realise it's the training that makes a good dog and the more the general public acknowledges that the current standards against them are quite harsh. What do you mean by hygiene? My dog had to be wormed and up to date on vaccinations - what more do they need? You can't really catch anything else from a dog... My dog was toilet trained and doesn't go whilst on lead. I have never seen or heard of a therapy dog defecating indoors - that sort of thing would likely make the news.

I have, right on this very forum. And it wasn't a "real" therapy dog IMO, just a dog someone decided they needed and would train for themselves when denied one from legitimate organisations. It defecated inside a major shopping centre..very runny stuff and from memory the owner didn't clean up after it and the centre management had to deal with it. That dog was no more a 'trained therapy dog' than any of mine. Less so probably.

A significant proportion of the general public does not want to share space with dogs. That's why most assistance dogs receive training above beyond that of pets. ANY dog that undermines the rights of those with genuine disabilities to have THEIR dogs with them is a problem IMO.

These dogs are still trained - they're just not trained to be guide dogs. With therapy dogs timing can be a very sensitive factor and the fact is they often already somehow know what is required of them, so as long as they're not a danger or an annoyance to anyone else, what exactly is the problem? These dogs do no harm to anyone else and make a huge difference to the lives of their owners. Dogs used to spend all their time with their handlers and vice versa - and it can work.

The dog in the OP is not 'trained' in any way different to your average pet. Nothing is required by the owner of the dog other than it's physical presence. That dog is nothing more than a canine security blanket that has been legitimized by a certificate from a GP.

I'm not talking about dogs that owners have a genuine need for. I'm talking about pets masquerading as therapy dogs for the convenience and pleasure of the owner. So are most other people who have issues with the behaviour in the OP. It would be useful if you could grasp that no-one has issues with the genuine article.

My dog wasn't allowed into restaurants anyway - I never tried but I am confident I would have been shooed away.

By law, an accredited dog must be admitted to such places. The owner's CAN'T shoo one away. A right hard fought and rigorously enforced for people who NEED their dogs with them in such places shouldn't be trivialised for the convenience of a pet owner.

Edited July 26, 2011 by poodlefan

[persephone]