Fake service dog gear creates problems for Americans with disabilities

[cobright]

But like its been said, anyone can get a vest or something on line or print out a card with a fake schools name on it. So to an outsider, you can't know the difference between a home schooled and school trained animal. And as far as proof of shots, our dogs always had their collar with their vaccination tags on and so has every other guide dog I've ever seen.

By this same token, anyone can print up a fake drivers license and go drink in bars underage. Sure they could try, but when the state issues a certificate they make it hard to copy.

Make the service animal status an endorsement on the pet's license. The state can accept documentation from knows service dog trainers (like leaderdogs, paws, CCI, etc...) and for unknown ones require a demonstration of basic self control to a test facility run by one of these known service dog breeders. The law could cap the price of this test to something reasonable.

As for business owner rights, you might be surprised. There is a clause that says if having the dog with you 'fundamentally alters' the nature of the business they can ask you to leave the dog outside. So far, examples of this include a dog barking while in a movie theater. ADA guidelines and FAQ actually say that a barking dog cannot be asked to leave a restaurant.

I was told by a restaurant owner that a dog with some horrible odor and visible fleas could not be asked to leave under ADA guidelines. On an airline I watched someone with asthma nearly die because the service-chihuahua she was seated behind had more right to be there than she did.

As it stands, the only recourse is to kick the service dog and its owner out and risk a lawsuit. During the lawsuit the owner of the service dog will have to prove that they are disabled and that the dog is necessary for that disability. All I'm saying is that if the law can require them to prove this AFTER they take it out into the public, maybe it's not such a bad idea that they do this BEFORE they take it out into crowds of people.

 

[Kellykins1218]

Thank you.

No problem. It's common sense

 

[JLC44]

I'm going to disagree with you on that. Businesses have been absolutely crucified in the press and with the general public when a story about denying a service dog has come out. Once the bad press is out, there's no taking it back Someone who is selfish and jerky enough to fake a service dog would most likely be that type of person screaming to anyone who would listen about their rights. That could easily and quickly destroy a small business.

Businesses have been crucified for not knowing a more than 20 year old law. I have researched and read all kinds of service dog stories over the last 2 1/2 years in preparation for when we got our service dog in May. The business either says no comment or apologizes for employee not knowing the law. Not once have I seen a business say "the dog was acting aggressively so under the ADA we exercised our right to deny it entry or asked to have it removed".

I believe it is in this thread about the lady with a yorkie yelling and screaming because she was either being asked to remove it or not allowed in, why wasn't this a big deal? A company like Disney denying a service dog that would be a huge news story, but it wasn't because they were right.

By this same token, anyone can print up a fake drivers license and go drink in bars underage. Sure they could try, but when the state issues a certificate they make it hard to copy.

Make the service animal status an endorsement on the pet's license. The state can accept documentation from knows service dog trainers (like leaderdogs, paws, CCI, etc...) and for unknown ones require a demonstration of basic self control to a test facility run by one of these known service dog breeders. The law could cap the price of this test to something reasonable.

As for business owner rights, you might be surprised. There is a clause that says if having the dog with you 'fundamentally alters' the nature of the business they can ask you to leave the dog outside. So far, examples of this include a dog barking while in a movie theater. ADA guidelines and FAQ actually say that a barking dog cannot be asked to leave a restaurant.

I was told by a restaurant owner that a dog with some horrible odor and visible fleas could not be asked to leave under ADA guidelines. On an airline I watched someone with asthma nearly die because the service-chihuahua she was seated behind had more right to be there than she did.

As it stands, the only recourse is to kick the service dog and its owner out and risk a lawsuit. During the lawsuit the owner of the service dog will have to prove that they are disabled and that the dog is necessary for that disability. All I'm saying is that if the law can require them to prove this AFTER they take it out into the public, maybe it's not such a bad idea that they do this BEFORE they take it out into crowds of people.

No, anyone can print up a license to carry their cell phone. There are no fake ones because there are no real ones, they aren't needed.

Go back and look at my post #38 for why certification wouldn't help. Your implementation of it has problems as well. Hard to copy equals more expensive. "Known trainers" who decides? There is no current standard certifying trainers, so first you have to certify the ones that will be issuing the dog's certification. Demonstration at one of your "approved trainers" who pays for the travel costs? How long is certification good for? How often do they need to go through the hassle and expense? Service dogs are not robots, they are not set it and forget it, it is constant consistent training, the best trained dog will behave badly if it's handler does not enforce the training. Then you have a poorly behaving certified dog. Cap the fee at something reasonable, who pays for the rest?

Restaurant owner is wrong, visible fleas is a valid reason to deny access, and horrible odor in a restaurant could be a fundamental alteration it would just be hard to quantify. The chihuahua didn't have more right, it doesn't have any right, the person with the disability has the same right to be there, accompanied by the dog. That person could have asked to be moved farther away from the dog. The reason allergies is generally not a valid reason is because it is not the dog the person is allergic to it is the hair, dander, and saliva. Refuse the dog and the person, as well as most pet owners, still has hair, dander, and saliva on their clothes.

Your last paragraph is where I have the biggest issue. Yes if filing a complaint the person will have to show they are disabled and that the dog does tasks to assist them, but it is their choice. They can choose to file or not to file. Also and really the bigger issue is that is all they have to prove, disabled and tasks. They do not have to take the judge with them and do a public access test, but that is the whole reason you want certification, to prove their ability to be in public not their tasks. You said they have to prove it after so why not before, but they don't have to prove public access after. They have to prove public access every minute they are in public, if they fail they SHOULD be asked to leave.

 

[cobright]

This is from the ADA website on guidelines for service dogs (from http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm and http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm ):

A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken.

Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals.

Q: What if a service animal barks or growls at other people, or otherwise acts out of control?

A: You may exclude any animal, including a service animal, from your facility when that animal's behavior poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. For example, any service animal that displays vicious behavior towards other guests or customers may be excluded.

What this means in practice is that on only the word of the person bringing a dog onto an airplane, restaurant, playground, or whatever that the animal is a service dog it must be allowed to remain. Even if it barks and growls, so long as it is restrained by its owner. Even if it has fleas or smells bad. Even if the people using that business have severe allergies to that dog.

The ADA describes circumstances where a business may refuse to accommodation to a service animal as "very few". In essence, having that dog there must make it impossible for other customers to make use of the business. That's how the law is now and it is being taken advantage of. The point of the article in the OP is that advocates FOR service animals are calling on the ADA to make some changes to limit the impact of scoundrels. I think this is a worthy goal and have a hard time understanding opposition to it.

When someone asks for a handicap parking permit they are required to show that it is needed to help their disability. It's not a perfect system but it is something. What would those special parking places be worth if people could self-certify their need for it?

 

[LockShockBarrel]

Planes fall under different laws.

 

[JLC44]

This is from the ADA website on guidelines for service dogs (from {Edit: had to remove the link before it would let me post} ):







What this means in practice is that on only the word of the person bringing a dog onto an airplane, restaurant, playground, or whatever that the animal is a service dog it must be allowed to remain. Even if it barks and growls, so long as it is restrained by its owner. Even if it has fleas or smells bad. Even if the people using that business have severe allergies to that dog.

The ADA describes circumstances where a business may refuse to accommodation to a service animal as "very few". In essence, having that dog there must make it impossible for other customers to make use of the business. That's how the law is now and it is being taken advantage of. The point of the article in the OP is that advocates FOR service animals are calling on the ADA to make some changes to limit the impact of scoundrels. I think this is a worthy goal and have a hard time understanding opposition to it.

When someone asks for a handicap parking permit they are required to show that it is needed to help their disability. It's not a perfect system but it is something. What would those special parking places be worth if people could self-certify their need for it?

You contradict your own quote. Growling at someone is viscous behavior and cause for removal. Fleas are a direct threat to safety of others and cause for removal. Severe allergies if enough to be considered a disability also need to be equally accommodated.

There are also advocates FOR service animals that are against making having a service dog harder on the disabled and impossible for some, especially when it will minimally reduce the fakers. I think enforcing the laws as they are now is far better than trying to come up with costly, difficult options that may or may not help at all, and could make it worse. I have a hard time understanding the opposition to holding businesses accountable for their own decisions instead of blaming it on the disabled.

The handicap parking permit is not a valid comparison. Handicap parking is a privilege, an extra benefit given, going about daily life is not. For the disabled a service dog is medically necessary for their daily life to be as normal as possible, it is not an extra benefit. If you want a more valid comparison say the government decides to crack down on illegal immigrants, a worthy goal, so it passes a law saying that everyone must have a passport to be allowed into any place of public accommodation.

Also the handicap tags are a poor example to make your case as it is rife with abuse, as is the voluntary state service dog certifications in California and New York according to some articles.

 

[sunshinehighway]

You contradict your own quote. Growling at someone is viscous behavior and cause for removal. Fleas are a direct threat to safety of others and cause for removal. Severe allergies if enough to be considered a disability also need to be equally accommodated.

There are also advocates FOR service animals that are against making having a service dog harder on the disabled and impossible for some, especially when it will minimally reduce the fakers. I think enforcing the laws as they are now is far better than trying to come up with costly, difficult options that may or may not help at all, and could make it worse. I have a hard time understanding the opposition to holding businesses accountable for their own decisions instead of blaming it on the disabled.

The handicap parking permit is not a valid comparison. Handicap parking is a privilege, an extra benefit given, going about daily life is not. For the disabled a service dog is medically necessary for their daily life to be as normal as possible, it is not an extra benefit. If you want a more valid comparison say the government decides to crack down on illegal immigrants, a worthy goal, so it passes a law saying that everyone must have a passport to be allowed into any place of public accommodation.

Also the handicap tags are a poor example to make your case as it is rife with abuse, as is the voluntary state service dog certifications in California and New York according to some articles.

Barking isn't viscous behavior though. It can certainly be disruptive but not vicious.

 

[livndisney]

Barking isn't viscous behavior though. It can certainly be disruptive but not vicious.

Where did the pp say barking was vicious behavior?

 

[sunshinehighway]

Where did the pp say barking was vicious behavior?

Cobright used barking and growling as an example of allowed behavior, not just growling. A poster quoted saying growling would be considered vicious to tell Cobright why s/he is wrong. I'm just pointing out Cobright also mentioned barking and that would be ok under current laws.

 

[cobright]

According to ADA.gov neither barking nor growling are necessarily justification for removal of a service dog. Only if the dog is out of control or posing a direct threat to someone's safety.

'Direct Threat' is actually a term-of-art with a very specific meaning in this legal context. Something poses a 'direct threat' when it is, "a significant risk to the health or safety of others...".

Fleas and dog-odor would hardly pose a significant risk, much more of a nuisance.

And it would be a nuisance I'm more than willing to endure and even subject my kids to if it was what is needed to allow a disabled person to enjoy that bit of freedom that the dog affords them.

But do not think for a moment that it is only disabled persons taking advantage of this law.

If you think that it is not a problem that there are people free-riding these accommodations so that they won't have to hire a pet-sitter when they go on vacation or to a restaurant to eat or whatever, then that is another matter. But as the woman interviewed in the article alludes to, when people take advantage of the system it hurts the system for everyone.

I'm not sure how anyone can reason that it is a good idea to let someone self-certify themselves as disabled and in need of a service dog, but a bad idea to let them self-certify themselves as disabled and in need of handi-cap parking. That is currently what the law says and it strikes me as a touch disjointed.

 

[JLC44]

According to ADA.gov neither barking nor growling are necessarily justification for removal of a service dog. Only if the dog is out of control or posing a direct threat to someone's safety.

'Direct Threat' is actually a term-of-art with a very specific meaning in this legal context. Something poses a 'direct threat' when it is, "a significant risk to the health or safety of others...".

Fleas and dog-odor would hardly pose a significant risk, much more of a nuisance.

And it would be a nuisance I'm more than willing to endure and even subject my kids to if it was what is needed to allow a disabled person to enjoy that bit of freedom that the dog affords them.

But do not think for a moment that it is only disabled persons taking advantage of this law.

If you think that it is not a problem that there are people free-riding these accommodations so that they won't have to hire a pet-sitter when they go on vacation or to a restaurant to eat or whatever, then that is another matter. But as the woman interviewed in the article alludes to, when people take advantage of the system it hurts the system for everyone.

I'm not sure how anyone can reason that it is a good idea to let someone self-certify themselves as disabled and in need of a service dog, but a bad idea to let them self-certify themselves as disabled and in need of handi-cap parking. That is currently what the law says and it strikes me as a touch disjointed.

Since you won't believe me, here is the Dept. of Justice ADA hotline 800-514-0301 call them tomorrow and ask if a barking and growling dog can be denied, and if a dog with visible fleas can be denied.

I am very aware some people fake service dogs, I have gone into a lot of detail why "the easy fix" is far from easy and not much of a fix. I have said what would help and not affect the people this law was put in place to protect.

I've addressed the handicap parking, it is not the same as public access. Aside from what I already said about it, handicap parking is a limited quantity when one is taken another is not able to use it, there is not a limited number of service dogs allowed in a store.

 

[old lady]

I don't why people do things like that.

 

[Mom2six]

I have not read all the replies so I am sorry if I repeat someone else. I say start prosecuting the pretenders for fraud - that will stop the fake service dogs. If just a few cases of people being arrested for buying service dog stuff and putting on their pet to trick businesses into special considerations or reduction of fees it would stop a lot of people.

 

[JLC44]

I have not read all the replies so I am sorry if I repeat someone else. I say start prosecuting the pretenders for fraud - that will stop the fake service dogs. If just a few cases of people being arrested for buying service dog stuff and putting on their pet to trick businesses into special considerations or reduction of fees it would stop a lot of people.

I agree with you.

 

[spidet1964]

Here is my problem, my oldest daughter has seizures more at night then during the day and our Cavalier King Charles has trained herself to notify me when she is having a seizure. The problem is that no "legit" service dog agency will offer a certification to a dog that they didn't train yet I need to be able to take the dog to hotels and campgrounds that don't allow them so my only option is to get a seizure alert info tag from a "non legit" online company.

I work at a children's hospital and we hav a patient who has a yorkie that trained herself. She had to pass all the tests but did not have to be retrained to be certified. So inquire abou that.
If that doesn't work do what you must and don't tell anyone.

 

[Lewisc]

No, anyone can print up a license to carry their cell phone. There are no fake ones because there are no real ones, they aren't needed.

Many (some?) municipalities require owners obtain licenses for their dogs. AFAIK that regulation is rarely enforced and those licenses are easy to fake.

I don't think cobright's suggestion will work.

According to a PP the problem of "fake" service dogs, and for that matter inadequately trained "service" dogs owned by disabled persons, wasn't deemed serious enough to warrant changing policy.

Anyone can call their pet dog a service dog. The only thing they have to do is know what lies to tell. Call your pet a "service" animal and you don't have to pay the fee to bring a pet on board a plane and you don't have to pay for assigned seats. Passengers with a service dog are entitled to a bulkhead seat, even if that means displacing an elite passenger.

It may not be enough of a problem today but I see the time coming where something has to be done.

 

[cobright]

Since you won't believe me, here is the Dept. of Justice ADA hotline 800-514-0301 call them tomorrow and ask if a barking and growling dog can be denied, and if a dog with visible fleas can be denied.

I sent an email directly to the ADA legal council, Alberto Ruisanchez, asking this question and got a reply and an invitation to call him at his office.

This is what I learned from our conversation:

1. The only 2 absolute reasons a business may refuse to allow a service animal on their premises is if the animal is not housebroken or if the animal is not under its owners control.
2. Being under the owners control means a leash and muzzle or if the dog can't work like that then voice command or other signalling methods of the owner will suffice.
3. Growling, barking, smelling bad, suffering from fleas or mange, and being unlicensed do not pose a direct threat of significant harm or injury nor do they prevent the customers of a restaurant from receiving the goods they paid for. As such they are not grounds for refusing the animal based on it being uncontrolled nor on the grounds that it fundamentally alters the conduct of business of a restaurant. Barking during a concert or movie would be different because it prevents others from receiving what they paid for.
4. A business may not refuse a service animal that is unlicensed even if their city or state requires all animals be licensed, and may not contact animal enforcement to report the unlicensed dog.

Conversationally, I learned that complaints about fake service animals have risen dramatically in the last 2 years. The ADA is not intended to be a political or legal advocacy group but their is growing pressure to additionally revise or clarify their enforcement guidelines as they did in 2011. I was encouraged in my telephone call to contact my congressman and local chamber of commerce and relate to them my concerns.

Additionally, after peeking around a bit, it seems he's right about complaints rising so much since their last look at the law in 2011. They may have concluded that fake service animals was not a problem in 2010 (time if the inquiry) but I doubt they would say so today. Some big names (and popular names) are pushing for another look at this:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/08/21/despicable-epidemic-people-using-fake-service-dogs/
http://www.cesarsway.com/dogtraining/leadership/Fake-Service-Dogs-Real-Problem
http://observer.com/2013/08/fake-service-dogs-ease-problems-of-completely-able-bodied-new-yorkers/
http://thebark.com/content/revisiting-fake-service-dogs
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Frustrated-by-Fake-Service-Dogs-208233211.html
http://dogsinservice.blogspot.com/p/fake-service-dogs.html
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...0405_1_service-dogs-service-animals-guide-dog
http://2010.servicedogsfl.org//docs/fakers.shtml
http://www.lapublishing.com/blog/2009/tbi-canine-service-dog/
http://source4politics.blogspot.com/2011/05/fake-service-dogs.html
http://www.lapublishing.com/blog/2009/tbi-canine-service-dog/
http://madmikesamerica.com/2011/04/critter-talk-the-great-service-dog-scam/
http://blogs.dogster.com/dog-training/fake-service-dogs/2010/09/
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2008-07-30/news/check-your-faux-service-dog-at-the-door/
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/st...vice-dogs-and-the/3wpzr-yryUmu5u05WM8Npg.cspx
http://www.livinglakecountry.com/blogs/communityblogs/120289064.html
http://frankiethelawdog.com/2011/08/the-problem-with-fake-service-dogs/
http://www.thedogfiles.com/2011/04/...-with-fake-service-dogs-are-committing-fraud/
http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/03/10/fake-service-dogs/
http://echevarriatravel.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/fake-service-dogs/

So how about this: No hoops to jump through, no certifications, no change in how the law is applied at all except that if a person is found impersonating a disabled person for the purpose of gaining special access for their animal, they lose that animal forever. There is already a process under the ADA for determining if the animal is a legitimate service dog, just up the ante a bit on the penalty phase.

 

[JLC44]

So how about this: No hoops to jump through, no certifications, no change in how the law is applied at all except that if a person is found impersonating a disabled person for the purpose of gaining special access for their animal, they lose that animal forever. There is already a process under the ADA for determining if the animal is a legitimate service dog, just up the ante a bit on the penalty phase.

Absolutely agree. I said in my first post the best solution is to punish the fakers.

 

[Piper]

Just wanted to say something about getting a doctor's note:

I live in apartments for people over 55 with limited incomes. There is a big pet deposit and they charge $20 a month in additional rent for each pet. If you say your dog is a service animal, you must have a letter from your doctor verifying a need for the animal...because you then pay no extra deposit or rent.

I cannot tell you how many people supplied the letter and don't have "real" service dogs. Several of them have told me that their doctor "gave them the letter so they didn't have to pay extra for their pet." Several of the dogs bark constantly and a couple have even bitten other people and animals.

The manager tells me every time she sees us that she wishes all the dogs behaved as well as Lucy. She has not renewed the lease of 2 of the people because their dogs were viscous.

It appears that out of a couple of dozen people, only Lucy and one other dog actually are trained to provide a service. One of the other residents is always telling people with pets to "just get a letter from your doctor and go online to get some credentials and you can take your dog anywhere." I am always trying to give the people true information. One of them actually told me that she took a letter from her doctor's office about an annual screening that she was due and somehow copied and altered it to turn it into the letter she needed!

 

[Mom2six]

I sent an email directly to the ADA legal council, Alberto Ruisanchez, asking this question and got a reply and an invitation to call him at his office.

This is what I learned from our conversation:

1. The only 2 absolute reasons a business may refuse to allow a service animal on their premises is if the animal is not housebroken or if the animal is not under its owners control.
2. Being under the owners control means a leash and muzzle or if the dog can't work like that then voice command or other signalling methods of the owner will suffice.
3. Growling, barking, smelling bad, suffering from fleas or mange, and being unlicensed do not pose a direct threat of significant harm or injury nor do they prevent the customers of a restaurant from receiving the goods they paid for. As such they are not grounds for refusing the animal based on it being uncontrolled nor on the grounds that it fundamentally alters the conduct of business of a restaurant. Barking during a concert or movie would be different because it prevents others from receiving what they paid for.
4. A business may not refuse a service animal that is unlicensed even if their city or state requires all animals be licensed, and may not contact animal enforcement to report the unlicensed dog.

Conversationally, I learned that complaints about fake service animals have risen dramatically in the last 2 years. The ADA is not intended to be a political or legal advocacy group but their is growing pressure to additionally revise or clarify their enforcement guidelines as they did in 2011. I was encouraged in my telephone call to contact my congressman and local chamber of commerce and relate to them my concerns.

Additionally, after peeking around a bit, it seems he's right about complaints rising so much since their last look at the law in 2011. They may have concluded that fake service animals was not a problem in 2010 (time if the inquiry) but I doubt they would say so today. Some big names (and popular names) are pushing for another look at this:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/08/21/despicable-epidemic-people-using-fake-service-dogs/
http://www.cesarsway.com/dogtraining/leadership/Fake-Service-Dogs-Real-Problem
http://observer.com/2013/08/fake-service-dogs-ease-problems-of-completely-able-bodied-new-yorkers/
http://thebark.com/content/revisiting-fake-service-dogs
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Frustrated-by-Fake-Service-Dogs-208233211.html
http://dogsinservice.blogspot.com/p/fake-service-dogs.html
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...0405_1_service-dogs-service-animals-guide-dog
http://2010.servicedogsfl.org//docs/fakers.shtml
http://www.lapublishing.com/blog/2009/tbi-canine-service-dog/
http://source4politics.blogspot.com/2011/05/fake-service-dogs.html
http://www.lapublishing.com/blog/2009/tbi-canine-service-dog/
http://madmikesamerica.com/2011/04/critter-talk-the-great-service-dog-scam/
http://blogs.dogster.com/dog-training/fake-service-dogs/2010/09/
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2008-07-30/news/check-your-faux-service-dog-at-the-door/
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/st...vice-dogs-and-the/3wpzr-yryUmu5u05WM8Npg.cspx
http://www.livinglakecountry.com/blogs/communityblogs/120289064.html
http://frankiethelawdog.com/2011/08/the-problem-with-fake-service-dogs/
http://www.thedogfiles.com/2011/04/...-with-fake-service-dogs-are-committing-fraud/
http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2009/03/10/fake-service-dogs/
http://echevarriatravel.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/fake-service-dogs/

So how about this: No hoops to jump through, no certifications, no change in how the law is applied at all except that if a person is found impersonating a disabled person for the purpose of gaining special access for their animal, they lose that animal forever. There is already a process under the ADA for determining if the animal is a legitimate service dog, just up the ante a bit on the penalty phase.

I would have to question the constitutionality of saying you cannot report the dog for being unlicensed if you are allowed to report other dogs as unlicensed. That seems like discrimination to me, and taking away your right to freedom of speech.

Edited to add - I don't think they should lose their pet forever. It seems unfair to the dog. I think it should be considered fraud though.