Pit Bulls as Service Dogs

[draggar]

Key word: should. We should be protected, but I'm not too sure we would.

And it's odd that you should mention the requirement for the service. I was told by a previous ASM that we had to drop the issue once the owner said it was a service animal, regardless if it was or not. Because no matter what the service the animal performed, even if they did have one, we couldn't ask past "is your dog/cat/bird/etc a service animal?".

Establishments ARE protected. If the dog is being a nuisance, aggressive (unprovoked), and/or destructive you can ask them to leave, service dog or not. I think the ADA has refused to defend cases like this. A nuisance can be annoying other people (other than just being there) like constantly up other people's rear ends, licking, barking, etc.. Destructive can be biting (fixtures, etc.), chewing things it isn't supposed to, and relieving itself. A true service dog person would be VERY embarrassed if their service dog did any of these.

You can also ask them not to enter if there is a genuine risk for the dog's health and safety (sorry, but I can't let you in that aisle, we just had an anti-freeze spill and are cleaning it up - can I help you with something?). A person with a real service dog will appreciate that and would not knowingly put their dog in danger.

Any employee who deals with the public should at least read over the ADA quick guide (I think that's what it is called, or business brief?) on service dogs.

The sad part is that abusers are the one who will shout and scream.

[Andara Bledin]

ADA Service Animal Guidelines for 2010 (pdf)

An excellent FAQ from ADA.gov on basic service animal questions.

Regarding the ability to ask what service an animal provides, here is the relevant quote from the first link:

When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

The relevant quote for when an animal may be required to be removed, along with the fact that the person with the disability cannot be barred, only the animal at that time.

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. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence.

^-.-^

[bainsidhe]

Any employee who deals with the public should at least read over the ADA quick guide (I think that's what it is called, or business brief?) on service dogs.

This is a good point. I remember at Mal-Mart we watched videos about tobacco and alcohol, proper stocking & lifting, scanning, etc etc etc. No where was there mention of how to treat someone with a service animal. Until I worked retail, I always thought service animals were large dogs with a vest. It would've been nice to have some mention of service animals and the law during training.

[draggar]

The relevant quote for when an animal may be required to be removed, along with the fact that the person with the disability cannot be barred, only the animal at that time.


^-.-^

Sadly, even the ADA doesn't get into when there is a serious risk to the dog's health and/or safety but it is a legitimate reason to refuse a service dog access to an area - I think the ADA figured all handlers would be responsible enough not to put their SDs at risk.

This is a good point. I remember at Mal-Mart we watched videos about tobacco and alcohol, proper stocking & lifting, scanning, etc etc etc. No where was there mention of how to treat someone with a service animal. Until I worked retail, I always thought service animals were large dogs with a vest. It would've been nice to have some mention of service animals and the law during training.

Yep - the same with many retail environments I've been in. Almost NO mention of service dogs. I've been bugging my wife's organization to offer seminars on service dogs for a "donation" to the organization - for some reason they haven't taken me up on the idea.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

And what would happen if someone was in a hurry for an emergency or other reason, and accidentally forgot the dog's cape/identifiers at home? What if they were lost, or destroyed in a fire, or stolen and the person with the service dog was waiting for a replacement?

Collar with a tag? A tag with a registration number? Most dogs I've ever encountered have worn a collar non-stop since they hit their adult neck size.

And if such were to be implemented, the time it takes to get something replaced would not be all that great. After all, if I can get a package sent from the West Coast to the East Coast in less than 24 hours, the service that provided the cape should be equally able to overnight one in the case of an emergency.

While I think service dogs SHOULD always have a cape or other unique ID on them just to reduce hassle, making it a requirement creates more problems than it solves. Besides, the cape/ID/harness is no indication...you can buy one off of multiple sites with no documentation whatsoever, or even make your own.

There are a number of people who have been in the news lately (for being denied access to a store while with a service animal) who might disagree with that. The extra step of having to put a cape onto an already willing animal seems to be less of a hassle of trying to argue with dick-headed shop clerks and restaurant owners who just do not like animals...period.

And as for false capes and registrations? Sure one can make a tag that looks official...but if someone brings in a dog that is not a registered service animal and that animal goes and bites someone...well not you can add additional charges against the idjit that did that.

What is an indication is the behavior of the animal. Even if the dog IS a registered, trained, certified, gold-plated service dog, if it goes into an establishment and acts in a threatening or disruptive manner (except, obviously, for doing it's proper alerts) it and its owner can be asked to leave or even banned from the premises.

Andara and the ADA already covered that nicely.

Originally Posted by ADA
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. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

While a dog's temperament is going to depend far more on nurture than nature (training rather than breed), it's been my understanding that Chows and Poodles were among the most ill-tempered naturally.

I agree with the Chow's. I have yet to meet a Chow that wasn't a miserable butt head trying to eat me.

Even if I was only passing by on my bicycle and not focusing on the dog or the owners.

Poodles on the other hand, Depends on the breed. Take a full sized Poodle and you have a more well adjusted dog. Go with the Toy or Teacup variety and they'll likely have "Small Dog" syndrome.

You know...where they overcompensate for their diminutive stature by acting like they're a thousand times larger than they really are. Usually by biting and nipping.

Not that I would ever kick a dog short of defending myself, but there is a reason I call them "Punting Puppies".

[Andara Bledin]

There are a number of people who have been in the news lately (for being denied access to a store while with a service animal) who might disagree with that. The extra step of having to put a cape onto an already willing animal seems to be less of a hassle of trying to argue with dick-headed shop clerks and restaurant owners who just do not like animals...period.

The solution to ill-informed and asshole shop owners harassing legitimate service animals is not to make more work and expense for the owners but for the shop owners to be shown the error of their ways and to be forced to stop their unacceptable antics.

Sure, it would be easier to just make the service animals and their partners carry the brunt of new regulations, but it's not right.

^-.-^

[Duelist925]

I agree with the Chow's. I have yet to meet a Chow that wasn't a miserable butt head trying to eat me.

Even if I was only passing by on my bicycle and not focusing on the dog or the owners....

I wish you coulda met my familes chows then (Well, one chow, one half chow). They would have barked had you just ridden past, but if we brought you in and let them sniff ya for a few minutes they'd be begging for playtime. And they never did learn they weren't lapdogs....XD Ahh, I miss those dogs. They were great animals, and very protective of little ones.

[draggar]

Sure, it would be easier to just make the service animals and their partners carry the brunt of new regulations, but it's not right.

^-.-^

My wife and I do this. The law bulk of the law is small enough that if you print it on a small font you can fit it on a 2-sided business card and still have it readable (by most people).

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

The solution to ill-informed and asshole shop owners harassing legitimate service animals is not to make more work and expense for the owners but for the shop owners to be shown the error of their ways and to be forced to stop their unacceptable antics.

Sure, it would be easier to just make the service animals and their partners carry the brunt of new regulations, but it's not right.

^-.-^

Yes, but let's look at logistics. Which is more effective?

Let's go on an aside for a minute. The Amish. Since they are not really big on technology (in varying levels depending on their community's beliefs I am aware but this is not the place to debate that) and seem to be really fond of black you have these Amish Buggies running around, some times at night, and a lot of times in places which do not have street lamps.

They tend to get hit a lot thanks to high speed motor vehicles. Even at slower speeds these collisions can be very tragic for them since they passengers are unrestrained in slow moving wooden framed vehicles.

The best thing as you say is for everyone of driving age "to be shown the error of their ways and to be forced to stop their unacceptable antics.".

However as of the 2010 census, there are 234.564,071 people over the age of 18 in the United States. While the Amish total population as of 2010 is estimated to be around 249,000.

Logistically, it is easier to make the Amish use reflectors and the "Slow Moving Vehicle". Especially in the light that the sign is the universally taught (at least in the US) symbol for "This is a slow moving vehicle...do not drive into it."

Quarter of a million Amish inconvenienced, or the time and effort to try and teach a quarter of a billion Americans, many who will never see an Amish person and/or buggy outside of Hollywood.

Doesn't make it right, but it makes the most sense.

And here we can compare that aside to the topic at hand. Quarter of a billion Americans vs the much lesser population of people needing service animals, many of them whom will never see a service animal (outside of Hollywood, Discovery Channel and the no longer in publication "National Geographic: World magazine *I* have never seen a service animal in person)? Which is morally right? teaching everyone of us. Which is logistically simpler? Capes and markings on service animals.

Doesn't make it right, but it makes the most sense.

And in light of the fact that most of us learned about service animals as children in schools means that people are taking the teachings and ignoring them or are conveniently forgetting them simply because they do not want someone bringing in a mutt into their stores. Which means making a few harsher laws and making the poor animals be required to be registered and show their colors means that fewer people are going to be willing to be douchewaffles if their freedom or their money (jail time and/or fines) are on the line.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

I wish you coulda met my familes chows then (Well, one chow, one half chow). They would have barked had you just ridden past, but if we brought you in and let them sniff ya for a few minutes they'd be begging for playtime. And they never did learn they weren't lapdogs....XD Ahh, I miss those dogs. They were great animals, and very protective of little ones.

There are exceptions to every rule. And it may be that you are one of the few responsible owners who know your breed and have raised it with an eye for making sure that it is socialized correctly.

This is a major point about Pits. They are very friendly dogs. They are very powerful dogs. They are very energetic dogs.

This means that there are things you have to keep an eye on and that you have to do to keep them well adjusted. Exercise is a must for Pits.

But that's no different from saying that [breed] needs constant grooming to prevent matting or that Shepherds and other working breed dogs need something to do or they tend to go stir crazy.

In any case, in the case of the Chows, you have just shown that my theory about you is correct. You know that Chows are protective. That was part of the breed design. But you have made sure that they weren't allowed to take that protectiveness to the levels that it can get if left to their own devices.

The level that has made me more wary of a Chow than most breeds of that size.

[Andara Bledin]

And in light of the fact that most of us learned about service animals as children in schools means that people are taking the teachings and ignoring them or are conveniently forgetting them simply because they do not want someone bringing in a mutt into their stores.

We did? I'd never been told a single thing about service animals in schools, and I wouldn't be surprised if most others weren't, either.

I honestly am not really sure what the rest of your post is about. Honestly, the Amish should have lanterns on their vehicles at night to help them see, and anyone driving in Amish country should know that there is a possibility of slow-moving vehicles on the roads. Honestly, there should be signs in areas where they are likely to travel (have the highest population density) much like you have for things like cows, elk, and deer that might be in the road. It's the drivers' responsibility to not hit them. And if you didn't have time to see them and slow down, then you were driving too fast for the conditions.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

Honestly, there should be signs in areas where they are likely to travel (have the highest population density) much like you have for things like cows, elk, and deer that might be in the road.

They do. Or, I should say, they do throughout southwestern/south-central Missouri, which has a decent-sized Mennonite/Amish population. However, their buggies also all have that reflective orange triangle on the back, as well as reflective 'lights' like those you'd see on a bicycle. In fact, I think the reflective orange triangle is mandatory for slow-moving vehicles, since it's always on farm equipment.

[Duelist925]

There are exceptions to every rule. And it may be that you are one of the few responsible owners who know your breed and have raised it with an eye for making sure that it is socialized correctly.

This is a major point about Pits. They are very friendly dogs. They are very powerful dogs. They are very energetic dogs.

This means that there are things you have to keep an eye on and that you have to do to keep them well adjusted. Exercise is a must for Pits.

But that's no different from saying that [breed] needs constant grooming to prevent matting or that Shepherds and other working breed dogs need something to do or they tend to go stir crazy.

In any case, in the case of the Chows, you have just shown that my theory about you is correct. You know that Chows are protective. That was part of the breed design. But you have made sure that they weren't allowed to take that protectiveness to the levels that it can get if left to their own devices.

The level that has made me more wary of a Chow than most breeds of that size.

My parents actually--they were the dogs I grew up with. And your very right--once I started researching different breeds, I found out chows are rather protective animals. But my parents, while not in any way professional trainers or anything, knew enough to discipline them correctly, so their protective instincts didn't go overboard.

I remember we had a neighbor who was scared to death of our dogs, since she was convinced chows were the snarly spawn of cujo and satan. She was amazed when, when finally convinced into giving them a try, they ran up, sniffed her shoes, and ran back off to go chase eachother. She asked my dad who he'd hired to train them, and he just gave her a funny look, explaining it didn't require any particularly special training--rather basic obedience and discipline training, with plenty of playtime was all.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

We did? I'd never been told a single thing about service animals in schools, and I wouldn't be surprised if most others weren't, either.

It may be an generational thing. There are a lot of things I was taught in class that my children look at me like I'm an idiot for asking if they were taught it.

I honestly am not really sure what the rest of your post is about.

It was a parallel example. There are certain sections of the Amish culture that believe that the orange safety triangle is against their beliefs. That the triangle is some symbol of evil and that the colors of red and orange are gaudy and pretentious and as such are not permitted (in their section, many others do not have a problem) and as such was an apt comparison to the topic at hand.

Largely due to the logistics of what is more effective. Teaching a quarter of a billion people of whom many will never see an Amish person or a service animal outside of Hollywood...or putting obvious markings on a significantly smaller number of animals be they Amish buggy-pulling horses or service animals.

Honestly, the Amish should have lanterns on their vehicles at night to help them see, and anyone driving in Amish country should know that there is a possibility of slow-moving vehicles on the roads.

The same could be said and should be said about service animals. That if you are running a business, you need to accommodate people who need service animals and not deny them access to your place of business unless the animal is behaving as you have stated from the ADA FAQ in a previous post.

It's the drivers' responsibility to not hit them. And if you didn't have time to see them and slow down, then you were driving too fast for the conditions.

Again the same applies to the owners and managers of businesses. It is their responsibility to make sure that people with service animals can do business there. If they do not then they find themselves in an actionable position much like the driver that hit the Amish buggy. Granted it is more Civil than Criminal, but there is the parallel.

Hence why I posted it.