The Problem With Fake Service Dogs

[OSoSwift]

A card that has a photo of the dog on it adn states.

This dog is a service dog, who is required by it's owner for their healtha nd well being. Service dogs have access to all areas blah blah blah

Wha is bad or demeaning about that? Why would that be so bad? It shows the dogs, say's yes this dog is a legitimate service dog with access to full areas.

Seems it would solve a lot of issues. If someone came to my restaurant for example, told me the dog was a service dog but had nothing to prove it then I have to say I would think they were lying. Call that demeaning but as we have seen people with try to claim their dog is a service dog when it is not.

[sandgrubber]

The only trouble with a photo ID card is that they'd be pretty easy to fake, especially if there isn't a national standard. Restaurant owners, etc. may find it hard to learn to recognize all states ID cards.

[Baby Dragon]

sandgrubber, that's pretty much what the QLD govt card says. Also, the cards from the AD organisations. I agree, not demeaning at all! Much less demeaning to carry the QLD govt card for example, than a Dr's letter everywhere.

A national one would solve the issues of recognition etc, like you said.

[Baby Dragon]

Sorry OSoSwift I was also agreeing with you, didn't read who wrote what properly :)

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

a national government issued id would be no easier to fake than other government photo ids.

It can be done but it's more difficult and is usually illegal.

[shapeshifter]

Why is it so hard to get people with assistance dogs to toe the line. It's for their own good but all they seem to be interested in is suing people that won't let them get their way!

They say that other medical issues don't have to prove anything but they do, they wear the ID bracelets to show people if something they are doing will affect them or they need help if they have something go wrong.

[Baby Dragon]

I think you'll find that people with legitimate guide/hearing/assistance dogs are very aware of the laws and abide by them.

It's most often the ones with the 'fake' dogs they're trying to pass off as guide/hearing/assistance dogs that are causing the problems and seem to be the ones that complain the most, as they run into the most access issues due to being unable or unwilling to produce correct documentation.

[shapeshifter]

If I pretend for a minute that I don't know anything about assistant dogs in any way, I've come onto DOL to learn 'stuff' it's a great representation of the disabled/assistant dog section of society I've learnt about in the last couple of months!!!

Do people, like these two or three in this thread that have spoken and been spoken about, realise how badly they make the rest of the people look, all they succeed in doing is making people doubt every single person they see with an assistant dog!

[Baby Dragon]

The changes made to the DDA a few years ago were made to bring greater protections to legitimate guide/hearing/assistance dog users, to bring clarity to required documentation and to give greater protection to those in charge of public spaces to kick the fakers out.

I guess in any industry you'll have the complainers, people doing the wrong thing, and ruining it for others. Not just the fakers, but also people in charge of public spaces. It's still a huge learning curve for everyone and I think better education is needed.

[OSoSwift]

I agree a national card with the same checks and balances as say our drivers licence or similar.

It does seem some are more interested about hollering about injustice than helping the progress of assistance dogs.

[sandgrubber]

Seems to me that before the problem of ID cards comes the problem of defining an assistance dog. I, personally, went through a few years of severe depression and my dog helped greatly to keep me away from going over the edge. I guess by some definitions, the dog could have been classed as an assistance dog. But I certainly wouldn't put her in the same class as Guide Dogs, who are carefully screened, and have something like 1000 hours of professional training (number is a guess). I don't feel that my dog should have been granted the right to go with me in the passenger area of an airplane. And people with home-trained assistance dogs . . . should they also have the right for special privledges for the dog-in-training as well as the original dog. You could end up with a situation in which all of us who are psychologically dependent on our dogs, including people with guardians, DA dogs, excitable little dogs, etc., were claiming rights to have our dog with us at all times. Could get pretty messy.

I don't know where the line should be drawn, but I see a real need that it be kept fairly high so as not to put in jeaprody the rights of the blind and others with extensively trained dogs who are essential for their daily lives.

[Baby Dragon]

Legitimate assistance dogs are screened and trained to exactly the same standards as guide dogs. Guide dogs are a 'type' of assistance dog, there is no legal distinction between the types of assistance an assistance dog gives.

I agree with you that a pet dog that simply makes you feel better shouldn't just have a vest put on it and have it claimed as an assistance dog. That's not the way it works.

The DDA (I posted the link last night) has a definition of what an assistance dog is under the law.

[minimax]

oops, wrong thread.

Edited February 19, 2014 by minimax