Worms and Germs Blog : Animal Health & Diseases : University of Guelph : Ontario Veterinary College : Zoonotic Diseases : Guelph, Hamilton, Ontario

Miami-Dade County, like some other regions, has banned pit bulls. We have the same ban here in Ontario. While there's a lot of debate over the quality and usefulness of such bans, the law is the law... until you find a loophole. 

That appears to be the case in Miami-Dade, where a growing number of pit bulls are being registered as service animals to make them exempt from the ban. This loophole could basically render the ban irrelevant considering there are no requirements for any special certification of service animals, and people are very limited in what they can ask regarding the service animal and its owner. Basically, once someone says "that's my service animal" the case is closed, since officials may not ask about why the person needs a service animal or require any proof that it's really a properly trained bonafide service animal.

This is just one more example of problems created by the vague nature of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) when it comes to service animals. Continued questionable activities like this run the risk of creating barriers for people that truly need service animals. Unfortunately, until the government addresses this issue and ensures that there is some control over what constitutes a service animal, such abuses will persist.

(click image for source)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I often write about service dogs, and I'm often fairly critical. It's not that I dislike them - on the contrary, they're incredibly important to people who need them. However, when people do stupid things with service dogs, it can ultimately hurt the people who actually depend on these animals.

I was at the grocery store today and the first thing I saw when I walked in was a woman walking around with a dog in her shopping cart (i.e. the place the next person's food is going to sit). The dog was a poodle puppy wearing the standard "guide dog in training" vest, and the woman thought nothing about walking through the store pushing this dog around. When I asked her about it she said that the dog was just a puppy and it wasn't good to have it walking around on the floor (with no explanation why). She did take the dog out of the cart, but then proceeded to walk around the store carrying the dog in her arms. The site of her holding the dog while pawing (pun intended) the fresh fruits and vegetables raised eyebrows among more than just myself. Eventually, she put the dog down, which mainly resulted in her dragging the dog around as it tried to lay down or walk the other way (which may explain why she wanted it in the cart).

Service dogs are allowed into stores. They have wide access and that's needed. Service animals in training, however, are not service animals and they do not have the same absolute right to access. Training needs to be logical and supervised. Getting these dogs out in different environments is very important. However, how does pushing a dog around a store in a shopping cart help train it to be a service dog? I'm pretty sure part of the dog's ultimate job description doesn't include this particular activity. Being carried around a store while shopping is also not likely to be part of this dog's job. If a dog is not adequately trained to walk around a store on a leash, it shouldn't be there. A little common sense would indicate that basic training in another environment should precede activities such as this. 

Fostering a guide dog is a good thing to do, but it comes with a lot of responsibility. I'm certain this person was well-intentioned, although I'd certainly consider her actions misguided. The "guide dog in training" vest should not be interpreted as a free pass to take the dog wherever you want without any thought. Training such a dog is an important job, and people need to think about what they are doing.

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone that is involved in these programs. I was unable to find any information about guidelines for people fostering service dog puppies, and would love to know what type of guidance people get, and what organizers of these programs think of this incident.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks

I've written a few times in the past about the need for better definitions and guidelines for service dogs. Service animals are incredibly beneficial for some people, but there is great potential for abuse of the "service animal" designation by people who don't really need a service animal and/or are using completely untrained and sometimes inappropriate animals.

An example of such unscrupulous behaviour is RegisteredServiceDogs.com. At this site, you can enter your pet's name and your information, and get a form for your physician to sign requesting the dog be authorized as a service animal - but there is no such process, and this company has absolutely no authorizing power! Additionally, there's a place for a vet to sign affirming  that the dog being "registered" has had all shots required by the state and that, to the best of the vet's knowledge, it will not be a threat to the general public. There is no mention about whether the dog is healthy, is well-trained, is specially trained as a service animal, has undergone any real scrutiny to determine whether it could be a "threat to the general public", or anything else that should be a requirement for a true service animal. In other words, this company does absolutely nothing to ensure that the animal is an appropriate service animal. For their overwhelming effort of providing you with a form to fill out, they charge $49.95 to send you a worthless card saying your dog is a "registered service animal".

Anyone who has a real service animal has no use for a card such as this. If they run into someone who inappropriately tries to restrict their access, they're better off with information from the agency that trained the animal or, in the US, a copy of highlights of the ADA, since restriction of service animals is illegal.

If this company was really in it to help the cause of service dogs, it would have some standard criteria to ensure that the animals it certifies as service dogs are really service dogs. Otherwise, it's a money-grab to provide a useless card to people with true service animals, and a way to help people who just want to take their pets with them to places where they are banned. None of this helps the cause of true service dogs.  It is a disgrace.

Anyone with a service dog that has questions or concerns about access should contact the agency that trained their dog or another reputable (non-profit) source of information such as Delta Society.

Image source: www.guidedogsofamerica.org

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

A friend recently asked me about having service dogs in classrooms. Her sister, who is a learning resources teacher, told her about an autistic child who will be attending her school with a dog. The dog prevents the child from bolting and helps reduce anxiety. She thought this was an interesting topic because of the various pros and cons that need to be considered, and I certainly agree. It may seem simple at first glance, but when you think about it, it's a rather complex situation.

Contact with animals always comes with some risk. We can never eliminate the risk entirely. What we need to do is determine how to maximize the benefits and minimize the concerns, and ultimately decide whether the benefits are worth the risks.

In this situation:

Potential concerns/risks (to the child and/or those around him/her):

• Zoonotic disease transmission
• Bites/scratches
• Allergies
• Anxiety in children/adults who are fearful of dogs
• Management issues (e.g. who's responsible for making sure the dog gets walked)
• Classroom disruption (e.g. barking, whining, wandering)

Benefits:

• Letting the child attend and get the most out of school
  

That's a pretty big benefit, and it's clear this is a good situation as long as the risks are controllable.

What should be done in a situation like this?

• The true need for the dog has to be assessed. Is it really beneficial? Presumably yes, but the question has to be part of the assessment. There should be a formal evaluation/way to determine that "yes, this animal is needed so we should do everything we can to facilitate it." It doesn't  need to be a restrictive process at all, but it should be in place. (The situation in the US with the ADA complicates this - pretty much anyone can say they have a service animal and the amount of scrutiny that can be applied is minimal. More discussion about this can be found in a previous post, just click here).
• The dog should, ideally, come from a recognized service dog organization. This ensures that the dog/person pair is properly evaluated and the dog is trained. If this is not possible, then the next best thing is for the pair to be involved with a service organization so they get similar (but after-the-fact) training. Getting a formally trained dog may be difficult under some conditions because, while some service dog types (e.g. guide dogs for the blind) are well established, formal programs to provide trained dogs for many other conditions are uncommon or or non-existent.
• The school board should be notified as early as possible. This gives them the chance to make any necessary arrangements.
• Parents of other children in the classroom should be notified. They don't need to be told why the dog is needed (privacy of the student bringing the dog is an important issue), but they should be told a service dog will be in the class and what the school will do to reduce any potential problems. If there are any concerns (e.g. serious allergies, fear of dogs) they should be allowed to move their children to another class without any hassles. Ideally this should be done before the school year starts to reduce any possible stigma of someone being moved because of the dog.
• The teacher should be educated about risks and benefits of therapy dogs. The teacher is a critical link as he/she will oversee routine management of the animal. The teacher needs to understand the benefits of service animals in order to accept the animal in the class. The teacher also needs to understand the potential problems so he/she takes his/her role in management of the situation seriously.
• General hygiene practices (e.g. hand washing after touching the dog) should be emphasized and enforced.
• Any "incidents" must be recorded and reported. Furthermore, follow up to figure out  what happened, why and how it can be prevented is crucial. Any aggressive or other disruptive behaviour by the dog cannot be tolerated and requires an immediate review. A proper service dog should not pose any significant behavioural risks (e.g. biting, barking during class, wandering around). The less the scrutiny of the dog at the start, and the less the specific training, the greater the likelihood of such problems occuring.
• The dog's veterinarian should know it's a service animal. The dog must be examined by a vet at least yearly, and at a minimum it must be properly vaccinated against rabies. If the dog becomes sick, it must be taken to a vet promptly. If the vet identifies a disease that might be transmissible to people, the dog must not go to school until the risk period for transmission has passed.
• A plan must be established for walking the dog and handling feces. The dog should not be taken to defecate on the playground. It should have a separate grassed area in which to defecate that is away from where children play. Feces must be promptly removed and disposed of, and hands washed.

Service animals can be a contentious and emotional topic. They certainly do provide tremendous benefits to some people, so we need to do what we can to facilitate them. At the same time, we need to properly manage the situation to reduce risks to others. Usually, a thorough proactive review of risks and benefits, and a detailed discussion of what will be done, can greatly reduce any concerns and maximize the benefits. They key is actually thinking about these issues and doing something about them before there is a problem.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Because service animals are so important to the people they assit, they have much greater access to various venues than other animals. In the US, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) specifically addresses service animal access issues. It was a landmark act that ensured appropriate access for these animals so that people who require them are able to take them into areas where other animals are not allowed. However, some aspects of this Act can lead to abuse of the regulations and unwanted scrutiny of "real" service animals. I was at an infection control conference recently and numerous people commented on problems they have had with people with questionable "alleged" service animals, the inability to find out whether they really are service animals, and the potential legal implications of trying to do anything to prevent them from entering certain areas.

These problems occur because of a combination of strong and vague statements in the ADA:

One problem is the definition of service animals: "Service animals are animals that are individually trained to perform tasks for people with disabilities such as guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling wheelchairs, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, or performing other species tasks."

• The definition itself is fairly straightforward, but there is no clear indication of what "trained" entails, and no requirement for formal training or certification, nor restriction of any animal species. Based on this, I could say that my sheep are trained to do something for me and then take them into a restaurant with me.
  

Some other key points in the ADA:

Businesses may ask if an animal is a service animal or ask what tasks the animal has been trained to perform, but cannot require special ID cards for the animal or ask about the person's disability.

• This means that while businesses can ask, all someone has to do is say "yes, this is a service animal" and the conversation is done. Some people that truly need service animals are not visibly disabled and you can't tell whether someone needs an animal by simply looking at them or talking to them. Back to my sheep example, if someone asked why I had a sheep on a leash in a restaurant, all I'd have to say if that he's my service sheep and he's trained to do something. Theoretically, I could walk into a crowded location with a Salmonella-spewing baby chick, adult cow or some other inappropriate animal and no one could do anything. Yes, those are extreme examples, but people like to test extremes.

A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the animal is out of control and the animal's owner does not take effective action to control it (for example, a dog that barks repeatedly during a movie) or (2) the animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.

• The problem here is who defines "direct threat." This is an issue because it is subjective, yet people can be penalized if they ban an animal and a complaint is upheld. Think back to the recent example of the pet chimp that almost killed someone. It wasn't a service animal in this case, but some people claim their monkeys are service animals. Some probably are, since some monkeys are specially trained to help the disabled (especially people with spinal cord injuries). Monkeys can be very dangerous, yet it might be hard to look at any given monkey and say it poses a "direct threat" to another person. A properly trained and temperament-tested monkey is probably low risk and justifiable. But, proper training and temperament-testing aren't required by the ADA

Businesses that sell or prepare food must allow service animals in public areas even if state or local health codes prohibit animals on the premises.

• Public health codes are there for a reason... to protect the health of the public. Therefore, careful consideration must be taken before breaking public health rules. The risks posed by a properly trained service dog are inconsequential, and properly trained and tested animals of appropriate species absolutely should have free access. Other species have different risks and these need to be considered. All animals are not created alike.
  

Violators of the ADA can be required to pay money damages and penalties.

• This is good for true violations such as someone refusing access to someone with a trained seeing-eye dog. However, it also leads to difficulties excluding high risk situations.

I'm know I'm going to get nasty emails from people with various untested, unregulated (and probably untrained) "service animals," but I think this is an important issue. The ADA provides a great framework for ensuring proper access to and by service animals. However, I don't think it's clear enough. Vague acts create the potential for stretching the rules and violating the spirit of the law. I'd never advocate getting rid of this Act, however I think it needs to be rethought. There is a great need for a clearer definition of what constitutes a service animal. Service animals should be specially trained, temperament-tested and certified by an independent body. If someone thinks they need a service monkey or horse, the need for that should be clear and the animal should be properly trained and scrutinized. Otherwise, it's a pet and shouldn't be given the same access. Problems that occur from inappropriate "alleged" service animals risk unnecessary scrutiny of, and barriers to, real service animals.

If you disagree, please comment. However, don't just send me the typical "I have a service horse and you're an idiot" comment that comes through periodically. Tell me why you disagree with better defining species, training and certification.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks