Qantas Sued Over Assistance Dog. ABC News 20/12/23

[Deeds]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-20/qantas-sued-over-assistance-dog/103223736

[tdierikx]

One would think that in a highly populated are like Sydney, one would be able to find someone capable of accrediting her dog?

 

T.

[Dogsfevr]

I sit in the middle as so many abuse the system of a dog being accredited & do believe in the entitlement of because off i should get a automatic "yes" .
I get feeed up with the well im disabled so i should just get what i want .Umm what about the dog .
A dog not trained correctly to accept noises,situations or meeting the requirements & being forced to do things outside its capabilities is not fair either & dogs should have advocates to protect them just as much .Too many people say my dog is my theraphy dog 
I mean you can buy the vests online & say my dog is .
What obviously needs addressing is how a dog trained outside of XYZ can be accredited or  asking why dogs not done via the schemes are not accepted & how working forward things can change .

It will be interesting seeing what the outcome is .
Just because other airlines have chosesn to accept isnt a given ,if anything happened those airlines would be screwed if sued & in a sueing society their should be accreditation .

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by Dogsfevr

[Adrienne]

If public spaces and services in general were more accommodating of dogs ordinarily going about the place with their owners, I suspect many people contemplating the assistance dog credentials route, would loose interest and simply own and live with their dog quite happily enjoying the assistance without the palaver!

 

The accrediting bodies being involved with particular breeders is understandable in order to secure a reliable supply of fit for purpose dogs, but refusing to test the credentials of any other dog not bred for, and supplied by them makes things murky… The testing protocols are the testing protocols. They are competency based and testable. Access to the test and opportunity to try for  credentials is a must if people want to cape their mate up and get going about the place together.

 

The airline is only seeking to limit its liability around risks associated with people travelling with their animals. No Vest? No credential? NO WAY! 

 

I am ambivelant about the assistance dog sector. I think the dogs can be great. I think the benefits can be real. I think there is a lot of shite going on also because demand for fit for purpose animals is through the roof.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tdierikx]

Apparently there are different levels of accreditation... I asked somebody who has been through a similar experience. General public access is not overly hard to get someone to accredit the dog/handler for, but for things like flying it must be done through the specifically named accrediting agencies.

 

I spoke to someone who had a similar experience, and they went to their state and federal members about it - the result was that the federal government ended up paying for him and his dog to fly to Melbourne to get the required accreditation by the required agency. Can anyone see the irony in that? He was allowed to fly with the dog (in the cabin) to where he could get accredited to be allowed to fly with the dog in the cabin... bureaucracy at its finest methinks.

 

I agree with @Dogsfevrabout the fact that it seems that just about anyone can call their dog (or some other species) an "assistance" animal nowadays... and some are gaming the system to the detriment of those who are truly dependent on their animal to get them through each day safely.

 

I will go so far as to say that sometimes even the most highly thought of agencies supplying assistance animals can get it wrong... my brother (who is legally blind) was given a dog by Seeing Eye Dogs Australia who was highly dog reactive. Every time it saw anther dog, it would launch at it... in what universe is that safe to guide a blind person around? Said dog had all the proper accreditations required for full access everywhere too. Needless to say that the dog was sent back, and hopefully they either fixed the dog reactivity issue before giving it to someone else, or rehomed it as a pet after some rehabbing of the issue.

 

T.

[persephone]

19 hours ago, tdierikx said:

One would think that in a highly populated are like Sydney, one would be able to find someone capable of accrediting her dog?

 

T.

My thoughts as well! 

[persephone]

3 hours ago, tdierikx said:

my brother (who is legally blind) was given a dog by Seeing Eye Dogs Australia who was highly dog reactive. Every time it saw anther dog, it would launch at it... in what universe is that safe to guide a blind person around?

As a one time trainer of Guide Dogs - I shuddered! That is just so wrong  dangerous and NOT good publicity. That dog should never have been used.

[Little Gifts]

I think it is the general public causing some of their own problems too. So many people these days claiming any old dog is an assistance animal. I adore my pets and they give me a great deal of comfort but they aren't trained for any of it. All I expect of an animal with a job is that it is capable of the task under a range of conditions. So if you fly with your support dog, for their sake and yours, in a confined space I want to know it is safe, you are safe and and the passengers and crew are safe. I don't think that is too much to ask.

 

And those of us who know the breeders behind Tapua Labs know the work that goes into those pups from the minute they are born to prepare them for a range of roles and how they identify which pup might be suited for what role. Some of it is the dog's natural abilities and some of it is their conditioning and training. That's why I'm also for formally assessing the capabilities of approved assistance dogs. Once they are working they have an enormous responsibility.