# Definition of "service animal" has been changed



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

I'm not sure what to think about this. Opinions.

Justice Department tightens definition of service animal | Health | Dallas-Fort Worth Lifesty...

A







View photos



By Elizabeth Campbell

[email protected]

Can a monkey accompany someone into the Will Rogers Arena during an equestrian event? 
Or, is it OK to take a serval -- an African cat that can weigh up to 40 pounds and jump 10 feet into the air -- along when eating out at a restaurant? 
Those are the sort of questions David Ondich, the Fort Worth disabilities program coordinator, gets a lot. 
But new guidelines issued by the Justice Department last week that generally limit the definition of a service animal to a dog performing tasks -- such as guiding a blind person or pulling a wheelchair -- should make his job easier. 
Since the Americans with Disabilities Act took effect 20 years ago, people have used monkeys, ferrets and other animals, which led to complaints over what was allowed in public places such as restaurants, stores and hotels. 
"I learned that horses see monkeys as predators. That would have been a disruptive situation for the horses and riders," Ondich said. 
On March 15, the day the new rules went into effect, Ondich felt confident telling Fort Worth police that an Iraqi war veteran could not take a serval -- which can get as big as a German shepherd -- into a restaurant. 
"I had to tell the police that the cat is no longer a service animal with the new rules in effect," he said. 
Ondich, who is blind and is aided by a black Labrador named LeJeune, said he believes that other animals besides dogs can be trained to do specific tasks but that there have been abuses as well. 
Toni Eames, president of the Michigan-based International Association of Assistance Dog Partners, agreed that the regulations needed tightening. 
"I think right now, we have proof that dogs are consistently able to do work that is task oriented, and it is very important that it should relate to the disability," Eames said. 
Rule change concerns 
According to information on the Justice Department website, there is no limit to the size or breed of dog that can be used for service work. 
The dog must be trained for a specific task, such as guiding a blind or visually impaired person, alerting a deaf person to people or sounds, nonviolent protection or rescue work, retrieving medication, and helping someone with a psychiatric or neurological disability by preventing or interrupting destructive or impulsive behavior. 
Dogs that provide emotional support or comfort are not considered service animals under the new rules. 
Some advocates for the disabled said they are concerned about the impact of the definition change. 
Joe Berra, an attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project in Austin, questioned why the definition was changed to exclude animals except dogs. 
"The rule could be challenged on a case-by-case basis. Someone would have to show that they would be harmed by the new regulations of excluding animals other than dogs," he said. 
"The purpose of the ADA would be to protect those with disabilities and to acknowledge certain rights such as using a service animal is a way for a disabled person to function better in society." 
Berra said he does not know why the definition was changed. 
"If an animal is not a threat to health and safety, it would seem that there should be some exceptions made," Berra said. 
Charlotte Stewart, executive director of REACH Resource Centers on Independent Living, said she doesn't believe many will be affected by the new rules, as most people with disabilities use dogs. 
Yet, she is concerned about the limitations. 
"Limiting the definition of service animals to a dog that has been individually trained to perform tasks or to do work will definitely have an impact on the lives and independence of those with disabilities who use other animals to perform tasks that they cannot," she said. 
Confusion still reigns 
However, Eames said monkeys and other animals are still allowed on airplanes under the Air Carrier Access Act and in housing under the Fair Housing Act. 
"You have to ask how will the person get their animal to the airport or the place where they are going under these new rules." 
Eames added that her organization advocates for higher training standards, and that having an ID card for the animal or papers saying the dog is certified doesn't do much good unless the dog is well-trained. 
Fewer than half of the puppies selectively bred for service work make it through training programs, she said. 
Another concern is who provides care for the dog. 
Eames described a situation in which a school district would not allow a 4-year-old child with autism to have a dog in class. "Not enough emphasis has been placed on the dog itself. Not all dogs can handle working in public." 
Yet, Eames said the new rules could lessen abuses:"Hopefully, we won't get as many people trying to fake needing a dog." 
Elizabeth Campbell, 817-390-7696



Read more: Justice Department tightens definition of service animal | Health | Dallas-Fort Worth Lifesty...​


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

I'm sorry it has come to this, but for the most part I am in agreement. Because so many have exploited the allowances made for service animals (can you spell GoldRocks?) it has made it even more difficult for those with legitimate need and with highly trained animals to be able to partner and work together efficiently.


----------



## Bender (Dec 30, 2008)

I agree, there has to be a limit and more restrictions, because so many people abuse the concept. I know those with service animals don't like being questioned, but they have to keep in mind those that abuse things make it that much harder on them anyway. Perhaps if there was a HUGE fine for faking a service animal and that money went towards the real service animals it would help.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I think tightening is good for the most part as well. Although--I believe there are very legit organizations that train seeing eye ponies and service monkeys. While I am no sure about monkeys, it seem the benefit could be huge with them if trained well since they have opposable thumbs.


----------



## LibertyME (Jan 6, 2007)

I am glad to see the tightening... it is necessary ...at least in my small corner of the world where the abuse is escalating...


----------



## AcesWild (Nov 29, 2008)

I use a service dog. I train them myself and generally follow certain rules before I "graduate" a dog. I hate being in the bank or grocery store and hearing the following,

"Who are you training the dog for?" "No one, it's already trained." "Well what's wrong with you?" Although the words, "none of your **** business" and "clearly not incurable stupidity." I generally say nothing.

Also hearing, "where can I get a vest like that so I can take my dog everywhere?"

That is the worst. The absolute worst. The really you want to take the 275 hours of in home training, 50 hours of public access training, and 25 hours of professional/class time training I've put into my dog and just assume that your little Muffin-poo will be "oh so cute" in a vest so you can take her everywhere? I think not.

Your iguana is not task trained...nor is your serval...I mean really people...

Also it is of the opinion of many service dog users that service animals are to help the handler and otherwise pretty much disappear. If I'm in a restaurant and my waitress says, "wow has that dog been here the whole time?" then my service dog, is preforming well...

Unfortunately there isn't much they can do to get rid of fakers because so many places are now tolerant of arm charm puntables, as yes it is small dogs that 9 times out of 10 are the fakes.









Dixon in his service dog vest.










Moxie and I leaving our college graduation, where they called her name,









Moxie holding her diploma









Moxie and I after our college graduation.









Moxie during a college class, hanging out under my desk.


To have a service dog:
1. YOU HAVE TO BE DISABLED. (People seem to forget that!)
2. The dog has to be specifically trained to mitigate said disability, simply providing "emotional support" is not a valid task.
3. The dog has to be public access trained (it's in there somewhere, about behaving in public.)

I try to very politely educate people, but honestly, there are a lot of narrowminded stupid people out there who think they're not hurting anyone by misquoting laws and having fake doctors notes.

even more to add, the next step in this is mandatory certification. To me this is not so bad, Moxie is a New York State Recognized service dog, she also has a college ID and I have a letter from my college stating I provided documentation to them showing I am disabled and furthermore that under the ADA etc my service dog has access right in "all college spaces" from a state funded college it's not much of a stretch for her to be recognized as a service dog in every state. Dixon is OT, owner trained just like Moxie, but I'm not in college anymore. I have the CGC and TDI to prove SDIT status but for the public access test I will have to have someone take it with us and score him and keep records of it and every test is video taped...tightening these laws so that only certain organizations can administer/approve these tests would make things harder for me, but not so much that I wouldn't be able to continue to OT my dogs.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

I feel that any animal that is going to be designated as a service animal should pass some sort of mandatory testing and be certified/licensed as such, and to periodically have that certification/license renewed - much like a driver's license. 
I also feel that any company selling service dogs vests, harnesses, etc should be required to see proof of such certification before selling them to any. Right now, ANYone can order service dog paraphenalia over the internet, and because of ADA laws cannot be questioned. I have seen literally _dozens _of dogs sporting service dog gear who obviously have not been taught even rudimentary obedience, let alone the skills necessary to mitigate any disability - these are simply dogs that their owners want to have access to restaurants, in-cabin flight status, etc. 

It's a shame that tightening the requirements might make it harder for some folks with absolutely legitimate needs, but in the long run , it has to be _better _for them since it will be known that any service animals out and about are NOT "fakes".


----------



## LibertyME (Jan 6, 2007)

even SD handlers that truly need and use their SDs make it hard for each other...
Last month in LLBean a woman with a counterbalance dog was shopping.. She puts the dog in a down-stay at the door and shops throughout the store using her cane we were there 45 minutes and they were there when we left. _The lab had extremely good manners..._
Im sure she needs the dog and I understand that some days might be worse then others and in that particular instance the dog wasn't needed, but leaving the dog unattended while you shop sets bad example for others looking for any excuse to cart their dogs in stores.

We have another woman in town that brings her St. Bernard into stores and leaves it unattended while she shops...that dog is a nuisance...pestering other customers and wanders around the store...arughhh...


----------



## AcesWild (Nov 29, 2008)

Pointgold, although your point is valid your facts are bit off.

Just because a dog is wearing a vest doesn't mean that businesses can't question a team. Also if a dog is uncontrollable or misbehaves and is not corrected then yes, they can be asked to leave.

In fact ADA law states,
(not a direct quote)

Business' may ask:
1. Is this a service dog?
2. What tasks does this service dog preform to mitigate your disability?

The second question is where there is the most confusion, the business is not asking about your disability simply what tasks your dog preforms to help you. 

It could be almost any task that specifically helps you, I could say my dog tells me which medication I need, or something like that.

However, businesses are afraid to ask, because there is so much fear of lawsuit.

When people ask me I surprise them, rather than glare at them, I say, "Yes this is a service dog, thank you for asking."

Because we are a legitimate team and them asking is a small thing, but it might make the fakers more hesitant. 

Now do I think that every time I go into a grocery store or movie theatre I should have to disclose the nature of my disability? Of course not. #1 it's none of their business, and the presence of my service dog is enough of a red flag that I'm disabled.

I know people with fake doctor's notes, in any system there will be abuse, what about handicap parking? How much abuse is there of that system, just so people can park three steps closer?


Also to add, in cabin flight status is under something completely different known as the Access Air Carriers Act (or something like that) an emotional support animal can be anything and fly in cabin at no cost as long you have a letter from a doctor saying you have a mental disability and the dog provides emotional support. Drives me nuts that people would think that they want to be disabled.

Because the Access Air Carriers Act and (as I am finding) quarantine laws supersede (which I learned means comes before) the ADA law, then they can basically make up their own minds about what they require and look for and therefore can discriminate against psychdogs or any type of SD they want (mostly psychdogs)


----------

