My Friend's "therapy Dog"

[jacqui835]

Yeah look I don't want to annoy anyone and it's a sensitive issue for many. That said I really don't understand what the problem here is - the closest issue I can see is that people worry that therapy dogs will somehow lead to guide dogs losing their respect and priviledges - but I don't think that's a valid point because you haven't convinced me that people are trying to claim their dogs are guide dogs, or that they are being mistaken for them by the general public. Additionally, you have failed to explain how this would be a bad thing even if someone did happen to put them in the same category as these therapy dogs don't seem to be doing anything wrong, inappropriate, dangerous or annoying.

It's like you guys don't want people to try and find new ways to benefit from dog ownership. Guide dogs are serving as eyes, ears etc for their handlers. Therapy dogs are just being dogs and helping people who need a little bit more at that time in their life, whether it's in the form of emotional support, medical warnings, anti-smoking aides - totally different I think in the minds of most.

I know in my case my dog helped save me and save the general public money and resources that can now instead be devoted to people for whom there are no alternatives - I think we were all lucky in my case and I hope that others can have the same experience.

[poodlefan]

Jacqui I'll try and spell it out for you.

There are people who call their dogs "therapy dogs" so they can take them where they want to and avoid the laws that apply to pets.

These people don't have a disability. They just want their dogs to go where other pets can't. So they milk a legitimate system for their own personal gain. Their dogs do not serve any theraputic purpose over and above that of any other pet.

THEIR DOGS AREN'T GENUINE THERAPY DOGS. They are just pets so why shouldn't they be treated like anyone elses pet?

Get it?

Edited July 26, 2011 by poodlefan

[persephone]

You really have not understood what we are trying to explain

I am NOT against trained/accredited/registered therapy dogs., Lord knows I spent many years training dogs to be just that!

I AM against people manipulating laws/'the system' to allow them to have their beloved pet with them at all times.

*leaves thread*

[jacqui835]

Jacqui I'll try and spell it out for you.

There are people who call their dogs "therapy dogs" so they can take them where they want to and avoid the laws that apply to pets.

These people don't have a disability. They just want their dogs to go where other pets can't. So they milk a legitimate system for their own personal gain. Their dogs do not serve any theraputic purpose over and above that of any other pet.

Get it?

Sigh. Still don't see what the problem is. I give up, but I appreciate you trying to explain to me. I would only understand if the dogs were hurting someone, posing as guide dogs or whatever. They are just being dogs, I know that, but that helps people and if they think they need it and it reduces the strain on our welfare systems and hospitals I couldn't care less (of course so long as the dog isn't annoying or dangerous).

[megan_]

I think a few terms are being mixed up?

My understanding is that, in Australia:

* An assistance dog is a certified dog that helps someone with some sort of disability/need. This may be sight, may be daibetes detection, help with anxiety etc. The dogs is properly trained and certified and they have the same entry rights as humans. I don't think anyone in their right mind has a problem with this?

* A therapy dog visits people (eg elderly, sick children etc) and provides them with companionship. They undergo a behavioural assessment and the handler undergoes training. They have no special entry rights, other than the facility that they are assigned to (eg a specific hospital, at a speficic time).

The issue with people claiming that their dogs are assistance dogs (ie I need this dog with me to help me with XXX) is that, if something ever happens, all assistance dogs get tarnished. For example, at the moment people are allowed to train their own dogs to be assistance dogs and this is preferred by some. If other people claim that their own dog (who is not needed for medical reasons) is an assistance dog and it causes trouble, I would imagine that there would be a clamp down on owner-trained dogs, limiting the rights of the disabled to source and train their own dogs.

If people want dog laws changed, then the best avenue is to raise well behaved dogs and obey the laws. The quickest path to more restrictions is to break the law.

We see this all the time now. For example, my council has just opened a new park where dogs are not allowed AT ALL - even on a leash. Why? Because idiots walk their dogs off leash at on leash parks, so banning dogs all together was easier for the council. There was also growing resentment in the community about not being able to take the kids to the park without being harrassed by off leash dogs (and when you don't like dogs, having a dog approach you is harrassment).

[poodlefan]

Sigh. Still don't see what the problem is. I give up, but I appreciate you trying to explain to me. I would only understand if the dogs were hurting someone, posing as guide dogs or whatever. They are just being dogs, I know that, but that helps people and if they think they need it and it reduces the strain on our welfare systems and hospitals I couldn't care less (of course so long as the dog isn't annoying or dangerous).

These dogs are posing as accredited assistance dogs. Or more precisely, their owners are representing them as that. They get the same access privileges as guide dogs.

I have a problem with people pretending to be something they are not for personal advantage. The fact that they are pretending to have a mental illness makes light of those who have REAL mental health issues. It's cynicism at its worst IMO.

Edited July 26, 2011 by poodlefan

[RubyStar]

so as long as they're not a danger or an annoyance to anyone else, what exactly is the problem?

Yes we used the system to our advantage - but how did it hurt anyone else and how was it bad for guide dogs?

On a very personal and selfish level, it's an annoyance to me that pet owners are taking their dogs everywhere under the label of "therapy dog" because I cannot take my dogs with me everywhere, too. And I'm not prepared to try and abuse the system to do it, either. I've trained my dogs for distraction work outside shopping centres and the amount of people who have asked me if I am training a guide dog, because they are Labs, is incredible. Could probably try and cheat the system based on that if I wanted, but I wouldn't.

Jacqui, noone has issues with real therapy dogs. AGAIN, people have issues with PETS being labelled as therapy dogs just because the owner wants their dog with them.

As for it creating a better image of dogs for the general public seeing well trained dogs out and about in more places, unless they are accredited, how can we be sure that they aren't actually contributing to the negativity that goes with dogs? If Joe Bloggs believes Fido is just lovely and decides he wants to take him everywhere as a therapy dog, his take on well behaved may not be ours!

[RubyStar]

Therapy dogs are just being dogs and helping people who need a little bit more at that time in their life, whether it's in the form of emotional support, medical warnings, anti-smoking aides - totally different I think in the minds of most.

I might take up smoking so I can try to quit and claim I need my dogs with me to help me quit

[gila]

Jacqui I'll try and spell it out for you.

There are people who call their dogs "therapy dogs" so they can take them where they want to and avoid the laws that apply to pets.

These people don't have a disability. They just want their dogs to go where other pets can't. So they milk a legitimate system for their own personal gain. Their dogs do not serve any theraputic purpose over and above that of any other pet.

Get it?

Sigh. Still don't see what the problem is. I give up, but I appreciate you trying to explain to me. I would only understand if the dogs were hurting someone, posing as guide dogs or whatever. They are just being dogs, I know that, but that helps people and if they think they need it and it reduces the strain on our welfare systems and hospitals I couldn't care less (of course so long as the dog isn't annoying or dangerous).

Which of course is a huge issue with non-certified "assistance dogs". They don't receive any of the intensive screening or training that certified dogs do. Who's to say someone's "assistance dog" is well trained at all? There have been enough vents on here about the bad behaviour random people let their dogs get away with.

You say you don't see the harm or negative repercussions for proper assistance dogs ad their owners? If an uncertified dog is taken into a restaurant for example and then makes a nuisance of itself sniffing and drooling at food, the restaurant staff and patrons are going to have a pretty negative view on what they think is a proper assistance dog.

[PeiPei]

Thanks for the info, Dxenion

there is a National Assistance Dog Working Group which is working on a national ID system.

Three Cheers.

having worked for many years with dogs as guides and

therapy dogs ..and having put a big chunk of my life into careful assessment/training/placement ....so that hopefully the public would not be in any way inconvenienced by a

dog's inappropriate behaviour ...and that dogs went to those who they could best benefit... I am just a bit 'tetchy'

about pet dogs being labelled as 'therapy' dogs at the drop of a hat , it seems.

I too have been involved with training and educating Guide Dog and Therapy dog's and 100% agree with you. The very strict process that these dogs go thro is so strict that some dogs that have been specifically bred & trained for 15months don't make it. It would be a massive concern if random dogs were allowed the same privileges as these professionally trained dogs. Thank god Australia has such strict rules in place to prevent this from happening!!

Edited August 2, 2011 by PeiPei

[DaisyDog]

I call my dog a therapy dog. Purely because she's saved my life from suicide on a few occasions. She's helped with my depression in ways no meds or doctor can. But I don't try and take her everywhere...

[persephone]

But I don't try and take her everywhere...

...and that's the thing ;) I'm glad she is with you to help.

[tlc]

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.

There is actually more they need, my two girls "are" accredited therapy dogs, they visit hospitals, they have to have testing every 3 months which involves a throat swap and also a sample of thier pooh has to be tested. There is strict guide lines we have to adhere to, to be able to visit our facilities.

[DaisyDog]

But I don't try and take her everywhere...

...and that's the thing ;) I'm glad she is with you to help.

Sometimes I'd really like to, she's so good for anxiety