Service dog people.

[HYHYBT]

On the idea that proof would be no more nuisance than a driver's license: how many times, in the course of a month, does someone ask to see your license? If you drink or smoke, maybe once every few days; if you don't, probably less than once.

Now, how many times in that same month do you enter a business? How obnoxious would it be if even half of those times you were stopped and asked for ID? I'm not saying it would be a horrible burden, but it sure would be a nuisance. And after all, a nuisance is almost always the MOST these fake dogs are... and you probably come across one far less often than you enter a building.

[Jester]

If they claim it is a "psychological support dog" (and yes, a legit one should use that phrase) they'll typically have documentation with them.

Ah, but therein lies the rub, as we can't ask them for documentation. To quote your own post (yet again):

You can ask two questions:

1) Is that your service dog?
2) What service does it provide?

Whether or not our alcohol seminar trainer had all his information correct, he was, according to you, correct that we could not ask them for documentation. So it goes back, yet again, to us being forced by law to take their word for it, be they legitimately in need of a service animal or bullshit asshole scammers.

There are ways to spot fakers and I don't want to discuss them in a Google indexed forum because then scammers will learn from it but if you want I can PM you signs that they are faking it.

While I believe most of the ones I've seen that I thought were scammers were, in fact, scammers, I would not mind receiving that PM.

Just remember, though, if the dog is being a nuisance, threatening (even growling can be considered a threat), or destructive you CAN ask them to leave - you are in your legal right.

If you feel there is a genuine concern for the health or safety of the dog you can refuse them access where the concern is.

Neither of these are generally an issue. We have never had a health concern in regards to the dog, and while we have believed certain people were full of shit in regards to their "service dogs," I will freely admit that the dogs in question were behaving and not being a nuisance. However, I very much feel the need to again point out that "not misbehaving" does NOT equate to "being a service dog."

We all know where this will lead - the states will use it as a fund raiser and only grant "licenses to train" to their supporters thus screwing independent dog trainers.

Really? You don't think it will stop the scammers in their tracks? Of course, that is what all license are for, to pad the pockets of political supporters. That is why I don't really believe in driver's licenses, insurance cards, fishing licenses, hunting licenses, taxi driver ("hack") cards, business licenses, or any other type of governmentally regulated card that is required by law for various activities. Whatever was I thinking? (Sorry, Draggar, I like you....but I think you are being a bit too paranoid on this particular point.)

The definition is very flexible because there ins't a "one size fits all" 10 years ago a "service dog" was mainly a seeing eye dog or a hearing ear dog. Now there is mobility assistance, autism, seizure alert, PSDs, support for PTSD, etc.

And laws can and are flexible. And they grow to encompass new things. This in itself is nothing new or original.

You have no idea the bullshit my wife and I put up with.

I work in a bar in a tourist town and deal with bullshit of every size, shape, color, ethnicity, race, species, cellular structure, payment plan, time shift, creed, sexuality, gender, astral plane, cell phone plan, frequency, amplitude, wavelength, superpower, and level of hatred for Dallas Cowboys. Trust me, I DO have an idea of the kind of bullshit you deal with!

Education is the best weapon. If you feel someone is abusing it then tell your manager - I don't think you want to be the one facing a possible ADA lawsuit let that be your manager's decision.

Based upon what we were told by a state-certified educator, our policy is to take people at their word and not question them. So, yeah, no ADA lawsuits coming our way. Scammers, yes. ADA lawsuits, no.

Right now, this is my draft of a letter:

I think the letter is still an overreaction. I think that, as written, it would be a mistake to send it. I would advise that you emphasize more clearly two important points:

1. That you are addressing the problem with the people who do not have legitimate service animals and who are scamming the system, and

2. That you understand they were just having fun and joking on the radio show.

Otherwise, I feel your letter will either be ignored or, far worse to your goals, be mocked on air. This was clearly a "morning zoo" show, and that is what they do. If they feel you are "with" them and "get it," they are far more likely to treat you fairly. If you come across to them as an uptight humorless zombie, they will treat you as such.

On the idea that proof would be no more nuisance than a driver's license: how many times, in the course of a month, does someone ask to see your license? If you drink or smoke, maybe once every few days; if you don't, probably less than once.

Now, how many times in that same month do you enter a business? How obnoxious would it be if even half of those times you were stopped and asked for ID? I'm not saying it would be a horrible burden, but it sure would be a nuisance.

I am a drinker. In years past, I was carded quite often, sometimes multiple times in a day, as I look younger than I am. Now that I am 41, I don't get carded as much, but I never had a problem with being carded, as that was the law, and that was what I had to do to get into the bar or club I was trying to get into.

Seriously, is it that much of an issue to show a card or an ID if/when questioned about something that you are legitimately allowed to do? We're not talking about "show us your papers!" in Nazi Germany here, kids; we;re talking about making it fair and better for those people in genuine need and stopping the scammers in their tracks.

And after all, a nuisance is almost always the MOST these fake dogs are... and you probably come across one far less often than you enter a building.

Yes, it IS a nuisance. To us as a business, to allow people pets in a place that they normally are not allowed, and for bullshit reasons. To our other customers, who are not so ethically flexible, who would also like their pets out with them, but aren't scammer assholes fuckwads. And to those who legitimately require service animals, to whom this whole thing is a slap in the face and a kick in the crotch.

I have no problem showing my ID whenever and wherever carded, if I am trying to get alcohol, or into a club, or on to an airplane, or a local discount at a Key West bar, or whatever else someone wants or needs my ID for. Why? Why?

Because any time someone asks me for my ID, I know I am going to get what the fuck I asked for, because *I* am not full of fucking shit.

[Eisa]

Last time I had to show my ID was when I was getting a new phone + service. Before that...I think when I went to the gay bar...? I don't know. I'm torn because I can see Jester's and draggar's point. If there's a way to not fuck over independent dog trainers, then maybe...? It would be a pain in the ass, but I mean that's kinda what we do to get into the national parks [my family and I]. There's this program where if you're disabled, you could get this pass--it's a lifetime pass. You get in the parks free for a day and overnights are half-price. But if you ever lose it...NO replacements ever. I imagine service dog documentation would be much less stringent than that...

[draggar]

Ah, but therein lies the rub, as we can't ask them for documentation. To quote your own post (yet again):

Whether or not our alcohol seminar trainer had all his information correct, he was, according to you, correct that we could not ask them for documentation. So it goes back, yet again, to us being forced by law to take their word for it, be they legitimately in need of a service animal or bullshit asshole scammers.

I'll have to find official documentation on it but PSDs are the exception.

This site has a lot of good information on it (but I can't count it as "official" since it is not the ADA website:

http://www.servicedogcentral.org/content/PSD

While I believe most of the ones I've seen that I thought were scammers were, in fact, scammers, I would not mind receiving that PM.

Will do.

Neither of these are generally an issue. We have never had a health concern in regards to the dog, and while we have believed certain people were full of shit in regards to their "service dogs," I will freely admit that the dogs in question were behaving and not being a nuisance. However, I very much feel the need to again point out that "not misbehaving" does NOT equate to "being a service dog."

I can agree, "not misbehaving" does not make it a service dog but a good service dog and handler (or trainer) team will never misbehave.

Really? You don't think it will stop the scammers in their tracks? Of course, that is what all license are for, to pad the pockets of political supporters. That is why I don't really believe in driver's licenses, insurance cards, fishing licenses, hunting licenses, taxi driver ("hack") cards, business licenses, or any other type of governmentally regulated card that is required by law for various activities. Whatever was I thinking? (Sorry, Draggar, I like you....but I think you are being a bit too paranoid on this particular point.)

There are already scammers on the internet selling "servive dog certifications" where you can get "official" looking documentation, an "official" vest, etc.

What if someone crosses state lines? What if someone moves, does the dog have to be re-certified with that state's approved training facility?

From what I've observed a good percentage of service dog handlers (no where a majority but much higher % than the general public) train their own service dogs and/or train dogs for others with the same disability (OK, I've never seen a blind person train their seeing eye dog) - my wife helps train mobility assistance dogs. Someone she used to work with trains hearing ear dogs.

And laws can and are flexible. And they grow to encompass new things. This in itself is nothing new or original.

Yet the lawmakers don't seem to consider the laws on service dogs an issue. They've ignored me and a couple others. Maybe I'll involve some other groups and make us more vocal about changing the laws.

I work in a bar in a tourist town and deal with bullshit of every size, shape, color, ethnicity, race, species, cellular structure, payment plan, time shift, creed, sexuality, gender, astral plane, cell phone plan, frequency, amplitude, wavelength, superpower, and level of hatred for Dallas Cowboys. Trust me, I DO have an idea of the kind of bullshit you deal with!

I'll admit you have to "bullshit high" aspects of your life - working at a bar and living in a very popular tourist area. But, you should expect bullshit in those aspects (or else you wouldn't be on CS and this site).

The issue is that my wife gets bullshit just for living her life. My wife has had a taxi cab door slammed in her face because the driver "didn't want an f-ing dog in their cab". No one would DARE say that if she ha d a walker. My wife has been told to leave restaurants because other patrons "don't like her dog". Hotels constantly try to bill us $25 and up a night for the dogs, even though it is illegal (and when we clearly explain that it is a service dog). The bullshit you deal with are though choices you've made (residence and job). The bullshit my wife deals with is because she is handicapped.

We've been called abusers of the law flat out because they don't see my wife's disability. Even people we know call us "abusers" because my wife chose to have a team of service dogs (Zorro and Kiri) in case one is tired and worked a lot previously and one in training (Luna) because Zorro and Kiri aren't going to last forever. If we were truly abusing it, how come we don't take Maiya anywhere? How come as soon as Pollux washed out we stopped taking him places as a SDiT?

Based upon what we were told by a state-certified educator, our policy is to take people at their word and not question them. So, yeah, no ADA lawsuits coming our way. Scammers, yes. ADA lawsuits, no.

You can ask the two questions. If your establishment's manager(s) and/or owner(s) have decided with this policy then that is their call and they are part of the problem.

I think the letter is still an overreaction. I think that, as written, it would be a mistake to send it. I would advise that you emphasize more clearly two important points:

1. That you are addressing the problem with the people who do not have legitimate service animals and who are scamming the system, and

2. That you understand they were just having fun and joking on the radio show.

Otherwise, I feel your letter will either be ignored or, far worse to your goals, be mocked on air. This was clearly a "morning zoo" show, and that is what they do. If they feel you are "with" them and "get it," they are far more likely to treat you fairly. If you come across to them as an uptight humorless zombie, they will treat you as such.

Be glad you didn't see the other drafts (which have been deleted). The first was when I was still fuming and didn't listen to the show again. At first, it sounded like they were calling all service dogs a scam.

Yes, it IS a nuisance. To us as a business, to allow people pets in a place that they normally are not allowed, and for bullshit reasons. To our other customers, who are not so ethically flexible, who would also like their pets out with them, but aren't scammer assholes fuckwads. And to those who legitimately require service animals, to whom this whole thing is a slap in the face and a kick in the crotch.

.. and it is because of these scammers we deal with far more bullshit than we should (hell, true service dogs with their handlers should not deal with any bullshit).

I love all our dogs, even the pets. I would LOVE to bring the pets wherever we go but we know the PETS are now allowed most places. I do not mind paying extra at a hotel for the PETS (like when we go to Orlando for a weekend) but they are PETS and NOT service dogs. Sure, Maiya may be able to help me be a little more social but she is a PET and has no rights outside of being a PET.

[Jester]

There are already scammers on the internet selling "servive dog certifications" where you can get "official" looking documentation, an "official" vest, etc.

Dude, there will ALWAYS be scammers, no matter what the deal is. I guarantee you that there are bogus fishing licenses out there for sale! Does that mean we should just throw up our hands in surrender and say we're not going to do anything? Of course not. Look, there are fake licenses and ID's out there, but that doesn't stop us from checking ID's, nor does it stop the state from requiring and issuing real ID's. And there ARE penalties for providing false identification, as I think you know.

What if someone crosses state lines? What if someone moves, does the dog have to be re-certified with that state's approved training facility?

There are two ways to go about this. Deal with it like driver's licenses, where one state recognizes another one, and they often extend reciprocity to one another in such things, or have the ID's/certifications be federal, since ADA is a federal law. Look, I don't pretend that I have solved this issue and know all the best logistics for it, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea. How it is implemented, if it ever is, will be up to legislators and those who push them on the matter, i.e., people like you.

Yet the lawmakers don't seem to consider the laws on service dogs an issue. They've ignored me and a couple others. Maybe I'll involve some other groups and make us more vocal about changing the laws.

That is always the best way to change, repeal, implement, or adjust laws. Well, to be honest, MONEY is the best way, but other than that, being vocal and making one's group heard is the next best way.

The issue is that my wife gets bullshit just for living her life.

The bullshit you deal with are though choices you've made (residence and job). The bullshit my wife deals with is because she is handicapped.

That is wrong, I admit. But that, if anything, should galvanize you MORE to deal with this injustice. After all, they aren't going to change the laws to help me out with the bullshit I deal with because, as you said, it is bullshit that comes with the job and the locale. But bullshit that one gets because of one's handicap? Yeah, that IS something that government can, and if prodded enough, WILL focus on dealing with.

You can ask the two questions. If your establishment's manager(s) and/or owner(s) have decided with this policy then that is their call and they are part of the problem.

How are they part of the problem when their hands are, legally speaking, tied? By the very letter of the law you yourself provided to this thread, they can only ask the two questions, they can't ask for any documentation or certification, they can't ask any questions other than those two, and they have to basically take the word of the people with the service animals, or "service animals," whichever the case may be.

Be glad you didn't see the other drafts (which have been deleted).

I have no doubt they were quite pointed. But that does not change the fact that, as written now, the letter most likely will still be ignored or mocked. If you want to make a point, and make it heard, you have to focus more on the issue at hand, that being the scammers, rather than your perception that mocking service dogs in general on the radio will cause the general public to do so as well. Because I do believe it is YOUR perception that they were doing that, and if they see it the way I do, they are not going to take you at all seriously. And even if they were mocking service dogs in general, attacking them will get you nowhere, whereas attacking the scammers they saw and scammers in general will make your point in a much better way.

I tell you this because I know what you are trying to do, and I think your greatest chance of success, at least with the radio show, is to modify your letter further. As it stands now, most radio shows, especially the morning zoo types that get hate mail by the barrel, will simply ignore you if you're lucky, or mock you if you're not. And trust me when I tell you that the guy with the microphone and 50,000 watts behind him has a distinct advantage over those who do not.

[draggar]

How are they part of the problem when their hands are, legally speaking, tied? By the very letter of the law you yourself provided to this thread, they can only ask the two questions, they can't ask for any documentation or certification, they can't ask any questions other than those two, and they have to basically take the word of the people with the service animals, or "service animals," whichever the case may be.

Education is the best weapon - know what a real service dog (animal) is.

"Excuse me, is that your service dog?"
"Yes, it is"
"What service does it provide?"
"It helps me and my friends be more social".
"Unfortunately under ADA guidelines that does not qualify it as a service dog."


"Is that your service dog?"
"Yes."
"What service does it do?"
"It brings people to me and helps me deal with shyness"
"According to ADA law, that is not a service dog".


"Is that your service dog?
"No"
(Duh)


"Is that your service dog?"
"Yes"
"What does it do?"
"He helps me walk and provides stability. Plus, if I drop something he can pick it up for me"
"OK, welcome"

"What does it do?"
"He alerts me if I am about to have a seizure"

The issue is that most people don't even question it anymore due to a fear of lawsuit. Yeah, let's not enforce check fraud because no one is really hurt from it.

Many consider it a "victim-less crime" (where it is a crime) so they do not feel they have to enforce it (yet when the not-service dog does something, establishments are more apprehensive (or worse) towards service dogs.

I used to work in a retail store and I was also helping with training Kiri. I used to bring her into work all the time. No one ever knew she was there (I worked in the tech room, her crate was under my desk, instead of an hour lunch I took 2 15's and a 30 so I could walk her - OK'd by manager). Someone complained (later turned out to be the manager). I had the company threatening to fire me over it (the HR person actually had the nerve to tell me to leave her in the car while I was working - um, it's south Florida). They claimed that since I was not disabled I was not qualified to train a dog and also that trainers are not allowed in places with their dog (this is actually written in the Florida law and they are). There were two reasons why I didn't fight it - 1) I needed the job and 2) Nothing was in writing. HR called me, complaints were verbal, etc. Yet the same manager allowed a customer to come in multiple times a week with his "service" dog - the dog would go to the bathroom, bark, and chew on the displays all because the manager didn't want to deal with a lawsuit.

I tell you this because I know what you are trying to do, and I think your greatest chance of success, at least with the radio show, is to modify your letter further. As it stands now, most radio shows, especially the morning zoo types that get hate mail by the barrel, will simply ignore you if you're lucky, or mock you if you're not. And trust me when I tell you that the guy with the microphone and 50,000 watts behind him has a distinct advantage over those who do not.

Yeah but the sad part is that by the time I probably get it written the episode will be long gone and forgotten (but they do mention service dogs and/or the abuse at least once a month).

[Jester]

If they mention it once a month, then clearly it is not long forgotten.

Edit the letter some more, and submit it. Perhaps even offer to bring your service dogs or dogs-in-training into the station (if it is a local radio show for you) so that these people can see up close and personal what you are talking about.

Just a thought.

[LewisLegion]

Again, even with a license size card, how is that going to work fairly? Someone goes through a program and gets a 20,000 dollar professionally trained service dog and gets a card on completion of the training. Great, wonderful.

Someone doesn't have 20,000 and so trains their own service dog. No card. Hmm. How do they then get a card? If there's a state or national certification process, how do they create a blanket test for every type of legitamate service dog in order to pass them for the card? How do you prove your epileptic alert animal ACTUALLY alerts to seizures unless you arrange to have a seizure right there? How do you prove your diabetic dog actually alerts to low blood sugar unless you purposefully go into the test with low blood sugar?

Under federal law, service dogs are tools for the disabled. They are viewed like walkers, wheelchairs, and canes are viewed. You cannot stop someone and ask for 'documented proof they need that wheelchair' and you cannot stop someone and ask for documented proof they need a service dog. People in wheelchairs may cause an inconvenience to store personnel just as someone with a dog might (other than the fact a wheelchair can't crap on the ground). They can be an obstacle for other patrons. An employee might have to take time out to assist the wheel-chair bound person in reaching high items or manuevering. A rude person in a wheel-chair can cause physical harm to others by ramming into them and not watching where they are going (how many threads does CS have about rude people in motorized carts?).

And yet you cannot demand documentation that they need that aide.

If certification or a license-type card proving I need a service dog became required by law, I would no longer be able to use my service dog. Why? Because save for basic obedience, she is self-trained by me. My life, and the life of other people like me, would be severely hindered or even crippled, all because it's an annoyance for retail workers to have to put up with people who are taking false advantage of the law. Those fakes would still just go online and make fake cards, and several people with legitamate dogs would have to do the same just to be able to live their lives, and we'd be exactly where we are today anyway.

[draggar]

Looks like I was wrong about the PSDs, paper work is needed but they do not have to carry it with them.

Why do I need a doctor’s letter in order to begin training my PSD?

Using a PSD without appropriate supportive documentation is legally risky. A safer way to proceed is to discuss your interest in PSD with your psychiatrist or therapist. S/he may ask you to provide educational materials on PSD to better understand what you are trying to do. Psychiatric Service Dog Society (PSDS) created its provider brochure specifically for this purpose. Print the brochure out and take it to your doctor, so that s/he will understand what PSD are all about.

Ask your doctor to support your decision to begin using a PSD, by writing you a generic letter of disability and support for using a PSD. This generic letter should be kept on file, in case you have legal problems in the future. Understand that a generic letter is not necessarily the appropriate letter for every situation.

Note: One should not use this letter, in order to gain access to places of public accommodation. To do so, is to teach gatekeepers that all Service Dog teams must show such a letter in order to access public spaces, and that simply is not the case. A doctor’s letter of disability and support for your use of a PSD is critical legal protection and should be retained in your personal files. Do not skip this step!

What should my doctor’s generic letter of support say?

On physician’s letterhead:

"[Name] is my patient. I am treating him/her for a chronic medical disability. [Name] uses a Service Dog to assist him/her in managing this disability, and I support him/her in doing so. It is my professional opinion that [Name]'s Service Dog is medically necessary. Please accommodate him/her and his/her Service Dog, as requested.

Sincerely, [doctor's name]"

Note: Due to HIPAA regulations, your doctor’s letter should not say that the reader of the letter is "welcome to contact me if you have questions." The law does not allow your doctor to speak with lay persons about your medical condition or treatment, unless you sign a specific waiver for ‘consent for release of patient information’.

Source:

http://www.psychdog.org/faq.html#need

(I cannot claim that this site is "official" - anyone can make up a BS organization and make a website for it. This domain has been registered since 2002 but it is under WhoIs privacy. But - this does seem rather legit and I cannot find anything on the ADA website in regards to this).

My life, and the life of other people like me, would be severely hindered or even crippled, all because it's an annoyance for retail workers to have to put up with people who are taking false advantage of the law. Those fakes would still just go online and make fake cards, and several people with legitamate dogs would have to do the same just to be able to live their lives, and we'd be exactly where we are today anyway.

Are you in the USA? If so, what state?

[LewisLegion]

Yes, Washington State.

[draggar]

Yes, Washington State.

It shall be unlawful for any pedestrian who is not totally or partially blind to use a white cane or any pedestrian who is not totally or partially blind or is not hearing impaired to use a dog guide or any pedestrian who is not otherwise physically disabled to use a service animal in any of the places, accommodations, or conveyances listed in RCW 70.84.010 for the purpose of securing the rights and privileges accorded by the chapter to totally or partially blind, hearing impaired, or otherwise physically disabled people.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.84.060

In your state it is illegal to take advantage of the service dog laws if you are not disabled.

[LewisLegion]

Of course it is. It's illegal I believe in all 50 states to take advantage of service dog laws if you are not disabled. My point is, those who are breaking the law now will simply continue to break the law even if it's changed to require a 'little license card', and it will simply add one more hoop for those of us who are legitamate to jump through.

I simply fail to see how requiring a license can be fairly enforced when you take into consideration self-trained dogs. Again, you can't have a standardized test for what qualifies as a 'service dog' since the scope of what they cover can be so wide, and some training can't be 'provable' in any kind of controlled setting. How do you prove an epileptic warning dog can actually perform a warning for a seizure on demand?

[Jester]

Again, even with a license size card, how is that going to work fairly? Someone goes through a program and gets a 20,000 dollar professionally trained service dog and gets a card on completion of the training. Great, wonderful.

Someone doesn't have 20,000 and so trains their own service dog. No card. Hmm. How do they then get a card?

Same way you get any other kind of license...you go through a government center and prove that the dog is qualified to do what it is supposed to do.

If there's a state or national certification process, how do they create a blanket test for every type of legitamate service dog in order to pass them for the card? How do you prove your epileptic alert animal ACTUALLY alerts to seizures unless you arrange to have a seizure right there? How do you prove your diabetic dog actually alerts to low blood sugar unless you purposefully go into the test with low blood sugar?

If these are legitimate service animals, and they can be trained, professionally or individually, to do what they are supposed to do, how is it possible to TRAIN them to do something but yet not be able to SHOW that they can do that?

Under federal law, service dogs are tools for the disabled. They are viewed like walkers, wheelchairs, and canes are viewed. You cannot stop someone and ask for 'documented proof they need that wheelchair' and you cannot stop someone and ask for documented proof they need a service dog.

There is a major difference between walkers, wheelchairs and canes and service animals. Specifically, in restaurants, walkers, wheelchairs, and canes are not prohibited. Animals, when not service animals, are. Not just prohibited by store or company policy, but by health department regulations. In other words, by law. So it is not ridiculous to suggest that people with genuine service animals be able to show a small card if requested. This also, incidentally, would cut down on scammers. (More on that in a bit.)

People in wheelchairs may cause an inconvenience to store personnel just as someone with a dog might... (more of same deleted for space)

There are douchebags with mobility aids, but there are also undoubtedly douchebags with service animals. As for their mobility, which you touched on, yes, large dogs can be unwieldy in stores. And yet, I have never in my life seen a service dog, no matter their size, that had any problem getting around and through things. In fact, I would put my money on a service dog getting through a crowded store without causing issues over someone in a wheel chair or mobile cart every single time.

And yet you cannot demand documentation that they need that aide.

No, you can't. But again, as I said earlier, in food service establishment (which is where I work and the angle from where I've been coming at this issue the entire time), animals are prohibited unless they are service animals by health department regulations. Walkers, wheelchairs, and canes, none of which are considered potentially harmful in a food service environment (excrement, hair, saliva, etc.) are not. Why does this distinction matter? Because, with VERY few exceptions, people are not going to bring along their favorite wheelchairs and lie about needing them because they enjoy the companionship of their wheelchairs.

If certification or a license-type card proving I need a service dog became required by law, I would no longer be able to use my service dog. Why? Because save for basic obedience, she is self-trained by me.

Is your service dog, as defined by the ADA, a legitimate service animal?
If not, however much your dog makes your life easier, you don't have a legal right to bring it with you into businesses that prohibit animals.
If it is, why would it not be possible to prove that your dog meets that definition?

Yes, she is self-trained, but she is trained to do a specific task or function. And I cannot imagine that there is no way to show that. How do you train a dog to do something if you can't show that that dog can do it? If there is such a way, please, educate me, as I have never even trained a dog to fetch, so I may be missing something significant here.

My life, and the life of other people like me, would be severely hindered or even crippled, all because it's an annoyance for retail workers to have to put up with people who are taking false advantage of the law.

I don't work retail. As I've said, I am looking at this from a food service industry angle, so it's not merely a matter of annoyance, but of health code requirements AND annoyance.

I don't know if you realize this, but the idea of the cards I suggested was merely my idea of how to combat the scammers, as I am on the side of those with legitimate service animal needs. I am not trying to make things more difficult for people with these needs, but am trying to help them in their acceptance by the general public by suggesting one way that would reduce the scammers' ability to scam. If you have any other ideas that you think would be more workable, I would love to hear it. More importantly, perhaps your elected representatives would like to hear it.

Those fakes would still just go online and make fake cards, and several people with legitamate dogs would have to do the same just to be able to live their lives, and we'd be exactly where we are today anyway.

This argument basically says that since some scammers will make fake cards, we shouldn't bother having the cards in the first place. Now, what would happen if we applied that logic to driver's licenses, ID's, passports, auto insurance cards, hunting licenses, etc.

No, there is no completely fool-proof way to completely eliminate the scamming. But there are ways to fight and reduce the scamming. It seems you just want us to throw up our hands and say, "We can't do that, because they'll just make their own versions." That does not address the issue, but actively seeks to avoid it.

How do you prove an epileptic warning dog can actually perform a warning for a seizure on demand?

Then how do you TRAIN one?

[draggar]

Then how do you TRAIN one?

You expose them and train them to alert to the smells and other chemical changes in the body that happen just before a seizure (which I'm sure they can put in a can now) - the same with any scent training.

[Jester]

And how do you train them to do this without in some way initiating a seizure or something similar to it? It's a fair question. And mind you, I am not looking for the technical answer of HOW it's done. (I know nothing about training dogs, and educating me on the technical end would just be a waste of time and typing, as it's not the point.) I'm saying that if you CAN do that, then it seems logical that you could illustrate the same thing for a licensing procedure.

Just a thought.