
Stop Faking Service Dogs - nether
https://www.outsideonline.com/2236871/stop-faking-service-dogs
======
smt88
Some of the other comments seem to miss vital information in the article.

ESAs (emotional support animals) are _not_ the same thing as service dogs[1].
There's debate about whether they're even effective[2].

Not only does this mean that people with ESAs likely don't _need_ their dog as
much as people with service dogs, it also means ESAs _don 't have the same
legal protections_. The only places that are required to accept ESAs are
airplanes.

In any other context, only service dogs are protected.

1\. From the article: "The [Americans with Disabilities Act] states, 'dogs
whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify
as service animals under the ADA.'"

2\.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/07/02/t...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/07/02/therapy-
animals-are-everywhere-proof-that-they-help-is-not/)

~~~
WillPostForFood
Here is the problem - you are a restaurant owner and someone walks in with a
dog wearing some sort of blue or red vest with an official looking logo. What
do you do? If it is a real service animal, you don't want to grill the poor
disabled person for the dogs paperwork, you want to be a good guy, so you do
nothing, and bunch of dog owners abuse that goodwill by bringing their dogs
places they shouldn't.

~~~
jdboyd
You aren't allowed to ask for paper work anyway. Here is all they are allowed
to ask: "A public entity may ask if the animal is required because of a
disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform." See
section f at
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/35.136](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/35.136)

That said, just asking people with apparently inappropriate dogs what task the
animal has been trained to perform would be a first step towards removing fake
service animals. If they can't answer, I assume there is something you can do,
but I don't know what that is exactly. It may depend on your state.

In the case of a specifically badly behaving fake (or even real) service
animals, section b of the same document says: "A public entity may ask an
individual with a disability to remove a service animal from the premises if -
(1) The animal is out of control and the animal's handler does not take
effective action to control it; or (2) The animal is not housebroken.", so a
dog barking or pooping in a business can definitely be ordered removed.

~~~
chris_wot
Yeah, that's a public entity, which is:

"Public entity means -

(1) Any State or local government;

(2) Any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality
of a State or States or local government; and

(3) The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and any commuter authority
(as defined in section 103(8) of the Rail Passenger Service Act)."

------
thraxil
My ex had narcolepsy and had a service dog to help her. She (the service dog)
did a number of things for her including detecting and alerting her to an
oncoming cataplectic attack, giving her a little extra time to get somewhere
safe. Her training was extensive and very expensive and she was incredibly
well behaved. She was a ten pound miniature poodle though (my ex was allergic
to dogs and poodles are naturally somewhat hypoallergenic (also very smart))
so she faced a lot of skepticism. Seeing what she went through on a regular
basis, the fake service dog trend that's arisen since has really annoyed me.

On another note, I've been living in Europe and the UK for the last few years
and one of the interesting cultural differences I've noticed is how common it
is over here to just allow dogs in restaurants and pubs and on public
transportation. That seems to be the default and only some places have "no
dogs allowed" signs up. If the US would take a similar approach, maybe people
wouldn't feel the need to fake service animal status.

~~~
kelnos
As someone who is allergic to dogs, I appreciate that they're not permitted in
many places in the US (especially restaurants). Actual service animals, as you
point out, are incredibly well behaved, but I've definitely been subject to a
fake service animal jumping at my lap while seated at a restaurant. Not my
favorite thing in the world.

If people would actually train their dogs not to be disruptive, I'd mind less.
But in my experience, most dogs are rowdy, annoying, and don't keep to
themselves even after being instructed to do so by their owners.

~~~
maccard
I live in Edinburgh - practically every bar here allows dogs. To give an
anecdote against your anecdote, I can't think of one occasion where a dog in a
bar was behaving any way less than perfect. Most of them curl up under the
table, and come out when someone walks by and rubs them.

I could make the same point about children, FWIW. Most children are rowdy
annoying and don't keep to themselves even after being instructed to do so by
their owners. Should children be banned from all restaurants?

~~~
bogomipz
>"I could make the same point about children, FWIW. Most children are rowdy
annoying and don't keep to themselves even after being instructed to do so by
their owners. Should children be banned from all restaurants?"

If children are misbehaving a parent can speak to them sternly and discipline
them in a language they are able understand. And often times a parent will
take a child outside until they calm down.

Have you ever watched the futility and absurdity of a dog owner tell a dog to
stop barking?

~~~
smcl
Wait - we're talking about dogs _barking_ in restaurants? If this happens (I
have literally never seen it) it _certainly_ happens less often than babies
crying.

I've seen people successfully halt their dog from barking outside (by issuing
commands, or a tap on the nose) and I have watched (with deepest sympathy - I
don't begrudge it at all, some day it'll be me) the futility of some parents
trying to calm a screaming kid.

If someone doesn't like dogs in restaurants on the basis of hygeine or
allergies then I understand, but noise would be a really weird reason.

~~~
bogomipz
>"Wait - we're talking about dogs barking in restaurants? If this happens (I
have literally never seen it) it certainly happens less often than babies
crying."

Yes for example, almost anywhere where there is al fresco seating in New York
City will have dogs owners who bring their dogs along and invariably one of
those dogs will start barking as there's shortage of stimulus. It is not at
all uncommon.

see:

[https://www.bringfido.com/restaurant/city/new_york_ny_us/](https://www.bringfido.com/restaurant/city/new_york_ny_us/)

------
iaabtpbtpnn
In Palo Alto and Menlo Park, it appears that all the landlords have colluded
to forbid dogs. Both towns are very dog-friendly, just not for renters.
However, if you get a letter from a doctor saying that your dog is an ESA,
which you can obtain online, then the landlord is forced to allow it (barring
extreme circumstances like dangerous dogs). So that is what _everyone_ does.

~~~
vforgione
I spent $200 two years ago to register my dogs to avoid non refundable pet
admin fees and pet rent. It's saved me almost $5k in bullshit charges.

When landlords stop gouging, I'll stop finding loopholes.

~~~
mike_h
Landlords have no way of knowing which dog is going to be the one that costs
them thousands of dollars in damage and/or headaches, so they have to charge
extra for all of them, same way insurance underwriting works.

You opted in to that price class, and that luxury of having a pet. When you
lie that your dogs are service animals, you make life harder for people whose
survival depends on it.

~~~
LnxPrgr3
If I have a serious wreck in my car, I win the insurance bet—that is, it may
well pay out more than I've paid in. Even crappy health insurance policies
have cases where they do the same.

Not so with pet deposits in any lease I've seen. They take your money, which
is usually non-refundable, and will still charge you for any cleaning and
repair not covered by the deposits you paid.

Perhaps it's insurance from the landlord's perspective, but it's an added cost
the tenant bears that offers them no financial protection at all.

~~~
kelnos
The extra money isn't meant to protect you (the tenant) from anything. It's
there to protect the landlord's interest in being able to recoup losses caused
by a destructive pet.

If a landlord isn't returning your pet deposit when you move out, it's not a
deposit, it's a fee. If they're misrepresenting it as a deposit that will be
returned, you might have legal recourse, depending on where you live.

~~~
LnxPrgr3
Leases are pretty clear about the non-refundable nature of the
deposit/fee/whatever, and it isn't exactly a rare practice.

~~~
kelnos
Ah, gotcha. Why is that so objectionable, though? Can you state with certainty
that a dog (not specifically _your_ dog, but the average or maybe even a
majority of dogs) does not increase wear-and-tear on an apartment at a level
that justifies a higher rent? I live in SF, so I'm certainly no stranger to
the concept of the greedy landlord who jacks up prices just because they can,
but extra pet rent seems entirely reasonable to me and not just a
manifestation of greed.

~~~
LnxPrgr3
The objection is generally landlords have to show damages to collect
compensation from renters. They collect deposits to ensure at least some of
the bill gets paid should you damage the place beyond normal wear and tear,
but if you leave your home in the condition it was in when you moved in the
landlord owes you your deposit back. That makes sense.

What justifies pet deposits being different? What justifies pet rent but not,
say, charging extra rent or an extra non-refundable deposit because you have a
toddler?

(Is pet rent even collected and applied to the cost of repairing any damage
your pet causes? I should find out what's common here.)

As an aside: I've also had a landlord charge almost $5 for a paper statement,
or just under $1 to e-mail me a statement instead. (No statement was no
option.) They're clearly not above nickel-and-diming their customers—which I
found weird because $1 on top of, say, $800 (plausible rent for a two-bedroom
unit in not-SF) is nothing—about 0.1% of rent. Which makes it a minor
annoyance at worst, but… why bother? $400 (common pet deposit amount in not-
SF) + $10/mo (common pet rent, when pet rent is charged) is also nothing—just
over 5% of one year's rent. But it's more of a something than a $1 fee for
them telling you what you owe this month, which they felt the need to do
regardless.

------
quanticle

        And why aren’t there more dog-friendly restaurants, bars, music venues, and 
        other businesses? There are nearly 90 million pet dogs in this country. 
        That’s a huge market, but also a huge problem when us owners act 
        inappropriately. As animal lovers, creating and supporting dog-friendly 
        businesses should be our priority. Acting selfishly to the detriment of 
        others will not create a more dog-friendly future. We want to be able to 
        take our dogs to more places, more often, but we have to make sure doing so 
        is appropriate and doesn’t infringe on the rights and well-being of people 
        who need real service dogs.
    

I don't understand this remedy. How will making it easier for the average Joe
Public to take his ill-behaved pet everywhere make it easier for those with
disabilities who require service animals? Won't that just make it more likely
that service animals encounter other animals which interfere with their
duties?

I think the real answer is to actually have certifications and licenses which
effectively differentiate service animals from ordinary pets. Right now,
there's pretty much nothing that anyone can do to prove that their "service
animal" is actually well-trained enough to be in a public place without
causing trouble. So, of course, people are abusing the system in order to get
their ill-behaved pets into public areas. The solution to that problem isn't
to make every public area open to pets, the solution is to have a clearer way
of differentiating well trained service animals from ill-behaved pets.

EDIT: The main fallacy that I see in the article is that it seems to be
treating pet ownership as some kind of fundamental right, and sees the "fake
service animal" phenomenon as a way that people are exercising this right
without working to change the system to make the exercise of this right
easier. I don't agree with that worldview at all. Owning a pet is a privilege.
If you find yourself in circumstances that are routinely unfriendly to owning
a pet, _don 't own a pet_.

~~~
Spivak
> Owning a pet is a privilege

What entity bestows the privilege of pet ownership? It seems like people who
claim that something is a privilege usually want to deny it from others.

Something doesn't have to be a fundamental right in order to expect a lack of
discrimination or the bare minimum of accommodation. If you accommodate the
lives and desires of others only because you're legally required I can't say I
would want to visit your business.

~~~
quanticle
_Something doesn 't have to be a fundamental right in order to expect a lack
of discrimination or the bare minimum of accommodation._

What about accommodating those people who have allergies to dog or cat dander?
I think their need (i.e their need to breathe without discomfort) takes
priority over the want of pet owners to bring their pets to all public venues
with them.

~~~
albedoa
Are you not making the argument for banning peanuts as an ingredient in
restaurants?

------
kelnos
I've always wondered about the prohibition on asking for proof that the animal
is actually a service animal. Why is that considered too much of a burden for
a disabled person? We don't let people into bars unless they provide proof
that they're over the legal drinking age; why should we let animals into
restaurants without proof that they have a legal right to be there?

It's somewhat ironic, since I see people flaunting their fake "service animal
ID cards", which, according to the law, aren't required.

I really _really_ wish more businesses would at least ask the "what task is
this animal trained to perform?" test. I imagine it would weed out a lot of
the fakers on the spot. I think a lot of people are "passive liars" in that
they're ok putting on a fake ID tag and presenting it when asked, but will
have a harder time actually lying about the animal's service-related
capabilities.

~~~
jmull
It's because there is no official system for licensing/registering service
animals so there's no way to provide proof.

So the law explicitly sets up an honor system, where you have to accept it if
someone says they have a service animal.

~~~
Shivetya
even in systems where there is an official system, think temporary handicap
stickers, abuse can be rampant in certain areas. From outright fraud of fake
stickers/mirror hangers to just always using a relatives car which has a
sticker.

the fix is in enforcement backed by real fines. nothing disgusts me more than
watching obviously healthy people run from handicap spaces into stores and
back out only to watch the little old lady have to hobble from further out
because all the spaces are taken.

we live in a society where there are people who will abuse a system because
they can or they feel entitled to do so because of some perceived offense.

considering the technology available today there is zero reason we cannot
provide RFID or similar tags that cannot easily be spoofed that is on the dogs
collar. where I am we have to have rabies tags on dogs so adding another tag
is a non issue

~~~
JBlue42
>we live in a society where there are people who will abuse a system because
they can or they feel entitled to do so because of some perceived offense.

Yup. If someone at a restaurant asked a patron those questions here in LA,
that person would leave in a huff, cause a scene, get some sort of Twitter
boycott going, etc etc, even if they were in the wrong.

------
interfixus
" _In California, the penalty is $1,000 and up to six months in jail_ "

The number and nature of jailable offenses in the US state and federal legal
systems keep baffling the European mind.

~~~
smnrchrds
And this is in Caifornia, one of the most liberal states. I shudder at the
thought of how it must be like in Deep South.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Generally speaking the left states are also the most authoritarian states. If
you can think of it CA probably has a law regulating it and criminalizing
failure to comply.

Whether a state is left or right leaning does not have any bearing on whether
it is highly authoritarian or not. It just so happens that the general pattern
in the US is high population -> lots of laws -> left leaning.

~~~
sdenton4
"...authoritarian..."

I don't think that word means what you think it means...
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism)

~~~
WillPostForFood
_favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the
government, at the expense of personal freedom._

Maybe you didn't understand what he meant, because authoritarian makes perfect
sense in the context he was using it.

~~~
sdenton4
On the contrary, authoritarian governments are not democratic, which is
illustrated by the example sentence in the OED definition you've provided (but
not cited): ‘the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime’

Any engagement with the word more serious than a dictionary lookup will
indicate that regulation and authoritarianism are not at all the same thing.
Restricting the access of pets to restaurants is not the same as the
dismantlement of civil society to enable a one-party regime.

~~~
WillPostForFood
It is authoritarian behaviour, not literally an authoritarian form of
government.

------
abakker
I guess, why should we allow more than the bare minimum of dogs in public
buildings. I don't like dogs much, and I'm mildly allergic to them. I've never
had a bad interaction with a real service dog, but this article glosses over
the part where some people might not want dogs in a restaraunt or on their
flight at all. I know I don't.

~~~
marchenko
I think the question of pets in public spaces is a bit of a culture-clash
issue. I was raised with well-loved, well-trained dogs, but I would never have
considered taking them to a grocery store or restaurant. There are a lot of
people whose enjoyment of public spaces is impeded by the presence of animals
- one person's emotional support animal is another's source of anxiety, and
often for good reason.

I think it is reasonable to expect people to tolerate the broad spectrum of
humanity encountered in public, including those at difficult developmental
stages, but extending this tolerance to other species is a matter for debate.

------
mekanicalsyncop
There are probably plenty of liars out there, but I think part of the problem
may be the fact that there are a lot of people out there that need a proper
service dog but can't afford one.

PTSD seems to be a big market for service dogs. However, every program I can
find that helps people pay for PTSD service dogs is for military veterans only
(If you know of one that isn't please let me know). Which is pretty sad
considering far more people in the US have PTSD for non-combat related
reasons.

If you can't get someone to help you pay for one, some of the trainers charge
$20k or more. People hear stories about how service dogs can change a person's
life completely and so when they can't afford one they buy a dog they can
afford and attempt to train them on their own. There are lots of organizations
and individuals out there providing information on how to do it. I'm not sure
what the typical results are like, but I imagine its harder to accomplish than
many assume.

My wife and I would have to save for years to get a $20k dog, so we've been
thinking about trying to train one ourselves. It might be foolish, but when
you're desperate you'll try anything. If they pass laws implementing fines for
fake service dogs, I really hope they are thoughtful enough not to make it
illegal to have a service dog that's not officially trained by someone that
charges a fortune.

~~~
blackguardx
If you have a diagnosed illness, then your service dog should probably be
considered "real." I'm not as confident as you that most of these people have
diagnosed illnesses, however.

I know a guy with a traumatic brain injury that is confined to a wheelchair
and has a "real" service dog. I don't think there is any way you can train a
random dog to this level on your own. The dog has amazing skills and took many
months to train. Also the trainers select dogs that exhibit the right
temperment at a very young age.

~~~
mekanicalsyncop
>I don't think there is any way you can train a random dog to this level on
your own.

I pretty much agreed in my comment. People try anyways because they've tried
everything else and don't have the money.

>Also the trainers select dogs that exhibit the right temperment at a very
young age.

There are lots of breeders now that offer to help you find a dog with the
right temperment. I'm not sure how legitimate they are though.

------
lxmorj
Ugh. Pet laws are so terrible. They're made out of laziness and a weird
inability to confront the actual problem. I have a pretty damn good dog. Lots
of people have shit dogs. Rather than actually address bad behavior, we decide
to tell everyone with a dog "no dogs here". "Some people with dogs are
inconsiderate, and we don't want to deal with that, so all people cannot bring
their dogs". In particular airlines have constructed a ruleset which
(incorrectly) assumes small dogs can be only so inconvenient/irritating to
other passengers and that larger dogs will be ok in the cargo space.

I have an ESA certificate to fly with my ~40lb Wheaten. Once, on a three hour
flight, I took my seat well before the woman next to me. When we landed and my
pup got out from her curled-up, fuck-this-engine-noise position under the
seat, the woman jumped, laughed, and said "I THOUGHT YOU HAD A FUR BAG!". That
is to say - while she isn't a perfect dog, she's pretty chill and well-
behaved.

I got the certificate online, and without lying. That said, the quiz amounts
to a longwinded version of "Do you get anxious? Does it get worse when
traveling? Does your dog make you feel better?" To which I think most humans
who have dogs would say "Triple yes."

I've looked at each argument that what I'm doing is immoral, and found a
rationale suggestion otherwise.

"People are allergic!" For $100 a tiny shedding dog can ride in a very-not-
dander-proof container. My dog is non-shedding.

"They can be noisy!" So can your toddler. So can above tiny dog. Mine isn't.

"It's like parking in a handicap spot!" No silly, my dog takes up my foot
space, no one else's

"The airline is losing money!" My dog & I weigh less combined than plenty of
people who pay the same fare. I've also offered to buy a seat for my dog and
leave her in a large crate on the seat. No takers.

"The guy next to you doesn't want a dog around!" See answer 1. Also, 90% of
people are happy to be distracted from the horror of flying. Anyone who isn't
can easily trade seats, since more than 50% of people are happy to sit by the
pup.

All in, my choices are:

\- don't have a dog \- have a smaller dog \- risk my dog dying under the plane
/ guarantee she's terrified \- don't travel \- get an ESA certificate

~~~
rpedela
I have a dog allergy and I would like to clear up a common misconception.
Shedding dogs are usually worse, but hypoallergenic/non-shedding dogs can
still cause allergic reactions. The difference is that there are less
allergens in the saliva, fur, etc than a normal dog but there are still
allergens. In other words, hypoallergenic dogs are a solution for mild dog
allergies, emphasis on mild.

~~~
lxmorj
Right - but as I said above - that doesn't stop small shedding dogs from
causing you problems. My point is that, on the allergy front, my Wheaten is no
worse than a beagle that someone paid for.

------
wbillingsley
> My dogs are as important to me as my friends and family. The first criteria
> my girlfriend and I apply to where we eat, drink, and travel is whether our
> dogs can enjoy it with us.

Eek, the article lost me here. Much as I have a very dear dog that is "part of
the family", I do tend to think it's important for people to remember that no
your dog is not as important as your family. It is a dog, not a four-legged
human. Time in the back yard while you're out is just fine, and it would
probably enjoy occasional trips to a dog-of-leash area to chase other dogs
much more than "enjoying a restaurant"...

~~~
jamesrcole
> it's important for people to remember that no your dog is not as important
> as your family

I think it is an accurate statement to say that, for some people, pets are as
important as their family. What is it that you think these people are not
remembering?

Some people might not have children, and their pets are like their children.
Some people don't have any other family.

~~~
bogomipz
>"Some people might not have children, and their pets are like their
children."

Because someone does not have a children does not confer human rights or
equivalency on a dog. This is such a distortion.

This whole idea of "its like my child" or "this dog is family" is always used
when it comes to justify taking dogs into shared spaces that are built for
humans.

However if it were a child or family would you leave it all alone in a 500
square foot apartment for 8 hours a day 5 days a week while you went to work?
Or would you feed them the the exact same food every day? In those cases "its
just a dog" right?

So it seems its only very selectively "like a child" then. It's really only
"like a child" when its convenient to justify some perceived right to bring
your dog wherever you please when its not actually necessary to address a real
disability.

~~~
JBlue42
>However if it were a child or family would you leave it all alone in a 500
square foot apartment for 8 hours a day 5 days a week while you went to work?
Or would you feed them the the exact same food every day? In those cases "its
just a dog" right?

This is also where some entitlement comes in. People faking that they have
service dogs so they can get it into their apartment building then leaving it
while they're at work all day, especially if they're single.

I love dogs but I'm not going to own one until I can personally make sure I'm
providing a good environment and training for it. That's not a studio
apartment in Central LA at this moment so I'm happy to wait. It's not a child
but it is a being I'm responsible for.

------
cpr
Seems like one of the main problems here is people who are treating dogs (like
TFA author) like people or like children replacements.

------
HillaryBriss
true story: guy goes to a restaurant (in California), sits at the counter,
notices that another customer has their dog sitting on that same counter.

guy tells the waiter that he would never come there again if the restaurant
continued to let customers sit their dogs on top of the counter where people
eat. (guy has a compromised immune system and wants to avoid the bacteria
present in dog feces).

waiter tells the guy "that would be fine. never come back."

i guess that's just the way it works these days. makes me wonder about
restaurant tables, chairs and counters now.

~~~
sgarman
Not liking dogs isn't a protected class so the private business (restaurant)
can do whatever they want. Now if they are violating health codes (sounds like
they were) that's different.

------
elipsey
Public service announcement: around a couple percent of people, including me,
have pet allergies. These are of varying severity. Mine are apparently worse
then average. The consequences of a severe exposure are unpredictable, but can
be closer to a catastrophe then a temporary inconvenience. I won’t get into
the grisly details, but I have been to ER for this, and my doctor told me to
carry an Epipen.

A lot of people don’t know that animal dander persists in the environment
after the animal is gone and transfers onto clothing and upholstery. If I get
exposed, I will be sick until I take a shower, change my clothes, and then
wait several hours. I will get sick in the presence of upholstery or fabric
that certain pets have been in contact with, until that material has been
washed. Examples include houses, cars, airplanes, all the clothes in your
suitcase that are spread around my hotel room, etc. The after-effects of a
strong exposure can last for a couple of days (again, I will spare the
details).

This is a huge ass pain for me, and I’m doing everything I can to work on it.
I get three injections every week, I’m on several drugs, etc. But in spite of
all of that, the social problems are worse then the health problems, because
people aren’t aware of the issue, and become offended, argumentative, or
defensive when I try to escape. I think that people sometimes believe that I
am criticizing their pet, their hospitality, or their housekeeping, or that I
am irrational or attention seeking.

I have been accused of hypochondria (I’ve given this honest consideration, but
several of my dearest family members observe that I accurately detect pet
owners in blind tests by becoming sick in the presence of their clothing and
effects, without advance knowledge of their pet ownership status; also, my
doctor pretty much freaked out about the results of my allergy diagnostics).
My friend (an RN) got super pissed when my mom asked her nicely not to bring
her dog inside my house. Pet owning friends have argued and interrogated me
when I offer my apologies and say I can’t stay for dinner. Last week a really
nice lady brought her cute guinea pig to an event and waved it around my face.
I had to figure out how to flee without hurting her feelings. I really like
animals, and the whole thing sucks, but it’s mostly beyond my control.

Surviving the “pet friendly” workplace is a serious problem when considering
employment, and I have yet to muster the courage to be “that guy” who asks to
be reseated on an airplane, in a restaurant, or complained in the college
tutoring session because someone brought their dog.

I'm totally willing to take one for the team if someone legit needs a seeing
eye dog or something. I just wish that my friend who took her “emotional
support animal” on the airplane believed that she was, on average, making
several people on each flight sick as a trade off. When I told her I had pet
allergies, she said she cured hers with mindfulness and meditation. I’m still
not totally sure which one of us is superstitious, but I promise, I actually
really did like her dog.

~~~
tallanvor
People with allergies have varying levels of reactions. Yours is a very
extreme case, and truthfully, I would suggest that no matter what, you're
going to be affected. Even in an airplane, most people with dog allergies
wouldn't be aware of a dog on the plane unless they were within one or two
rows of the animal, and even then, given the air filters in use, it would
still have to be a person with reactions approaching yours.

I have no problem if you or your family chooses not to allow animals in your
homes - that's entirely within your right. It's also within your right to have
people not wave animals in your face, and to prevent their pets from jumping
on you and such. But just like I wouldn't ban peanuts from restaurants,
planes, or public spaces, I don't think that dogs should be banned either. At
least, not on a legal level. --Businesses should have the right to make their
own choices as to who to cater to in this respect.

~~~
elipsey
Didn't ask for service dogs to be banned.

Just asking folks to keep in mind that some people have pet allergies when
they are deciding whether to take their _pets_ to work or school.

We have to go to those places and if people do that very much some of us will
be allergic to the carpets and upholstry and stuff even after the critter
leaves. I think most people don't know about this.

------
praptak
Maybe there could be an officially recognized vest or badge for proper service
animals?

That would spare the people who _actually_ need them the possibly embarrassing
questions while simultaneously filtering out abusers. Got a badge, no
questions asked. Forge the badge, get fined or go to jail.

------
nomel
'Therapy' animals are not service animals and are not protected [1].

[1] [https://adata.org/publication/service-animals-
booklet](https://adata.org/publication/service-animals-booklet)

~~~
Spivak
* under the ADA.

Discrimination against people with ESAs is protected under the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 and the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act.

------
goldenshale
Seriously, is this a problem that needs fixing? Are emotional support dogs
really causing society harm? Being able to bring an animal to work with you,
for example, has a positive impact on many people and animal's lives, and it
in no way discredits or disrespects more skilled or necessary service dogs.

Maybe a good solution is to have a dog license with various levels of
acceptance. If your dog is licensed then they must be proven to be well
behaved in normal circumstances.

~~~
qq66
Did you read the article? Some of these dogs have attacked other people and
dogs. If people are getting attacked by dogs they will lobby for policy that
gets these dogs banned. Legitimate service animals, genuinely necessary
emotional support animals, and fake emotional support animals are all likely
to get swept up in the resulting inquisition.

~~~
arwhatever
I'd need some statistics to be convinced that the anecdotes in the story are
actually commonplace, to be sure we're not banning 90 million people and their
dogs because of one bite.

I live in Seattle and people take dogs everywhere, and I seldom or never see
any issues. My initial reaction when I see articles like this is to feel like
this is nothing more that people wanting to shove rules down each other's
throats (and to think pretty snarkily that people can move to Kansas City if
they like) but then, my lack of observation of obviously fake service dogs
causing any sort of problems, is it itself anecdotal.

------
Overtonwindow
You could also create a licensure program for ESA's. Issue specificly branded
vests or collars, require specific training, registration, and certification.
This way if you want to use your animal as an ESA, you can, you just need to
be able to register and pay the fees. Those fees might dissuade a lot of
fakers.

~~~
ceejayoz
> Those fees might dissuade a lot of fakers.

Fakers, and low income people with a genuine need.

~~~
Overtonwindow
Genuinely low income concerns could be allayed with no fee, for those truly
low income, or a sliding scale.

------
qstyk
"My dogs are as important to me as my friends and family." That's not sweet,
it's sick.

House on fire, can only save one... Dog or Friend - Friend (time spent
deciding, 0 seconds) Dog or Family - Family (time spent deciding, 0 seconds)
Dog or Total stranger - Total stranger (time spent deciding, 0 seconds)

------
jamespitts
To address these issues, there should be difficult-to-attain certifications
for a dog to roam free (within certain bounds), and for a dog to go with a
human to places not normally allowing dogs (airplanes, restaurants, etc).

The latter certification would be a prerequisite for various service dog
certifications.

------
hypercluster
I'd really appreciate an easier way to take a dog on a flight. When my dog was
brought here via plane it had to be transported in the cargo area which is
just a horrible thought!

------
GordonS
Through work, I work with a development team in India. The hotel I always stay
at in Mumbai, the Renaissance, has a 'security dog' at the entrance.

Every time a car wants to get inside the hotel complex, a security guy opens
your door and a bored-looking labrador just sits there. It's quite obviously
just a normal, hot, bored labrador.

Every time I get back to the hotel after work I have to go through this
_ridiculous_ charade. It's so stupid it honestly makes me cringe with
embarrassment every time!

------
ch4s3
> Twelve states now have laws criminalizing the misrepresentation of a pet as
> a service animal. That's good, but with all the confusion surrounding what a
> service dog actually is, there's less and less protection for their unique
> status.

No it isn't good. Putting someone in jail for lying about their dog being a
service animal is terrible. We should be educating these people and
simultaneously putting fewer people in jail. Clearly the article outlines a
real problem, but jail surely isn't the answer.

* edited for tone

* edit: I'd also be curious to know why people disagree with the proposition that prison is too extreme.

~~~
majormajor
I don't think jail is an appropriate response in this case, but wonder what
your plan for "educating these idiots" is.

How do you deal with bad actors who see un- or laxly-enforced policies as an
invitation to abuse the system?

How do you deal with repeat offenders who are less malicious but are willing
to eat a fine, or whatever, and the occasional stigma, to be able to do what
they want?

How do you deal with people who have missed or forgotten some of the education
and so bring their dog into a situation that it isn't prepared to deal with in
a space it legally shouldn't be in and it attacks a person, another animal, or
causes massive property damage, or health risk?

Lately I see a lot of people proposing policies that ignore bad actors or
people opting out of the system, and don't discuss what to do then, and it
worries me.

~~~
ch4s3
> but wonder what your plan for "educating these idiots" is.

The same way you do with public health campaigns or any other public concern.

> How do you deal with bad actors who see un- or laxly-enforced policies as an
> invitation to abuse the system?

Finne them.

> How do you deal with repeat offenders who are less malicious but are willing
> to eat a fine

Fine them more.

> How do you deal with people who have missed or forgotten some of the
> education and so bring their dog into a situation that it isn't prepared to
> deal with

Make them leave.

> and it attacks a person, another animal, or causes massive property damage,
> or health risk?

There are already laws for that. Do people's dogs routinely attack people in
airplanes?

> Lately I see a lot of people proposing policies that ignore bad actors or
> people opting out of the system, and don't discuss what to do then, and it
> worries me.

I agree, and I think jailing people for nonviolent crimes is bad policy.

~~~
majormajor
Sorry, I read a too far into your original post and somehow thought it was
more anti-fine too.

Fining does run into a problem when they're out of money, though, where "jail
because they're broke" is a still dicey proposition.

As to public health campaigns and other public concerns: are we any good at
those? In the US, at least, there's a strong "personal liberty" ideological
bent that is very resistant to education in many areas. Seems like
conservationism is an example of a successful campaign in the past, but even
that's been more on the losing side lately around land protection, EPA, etc.

~~~
ch4s3
No, I'm pro fine, as long as it's reasonable and has a max and no minimum so a
judge can cut a poor person who just didn't know the law a break. But jail
just seems crazy, especially in a place like California where the prisons are
bursting at the seams.

> As to public health campaigns and other public concerns: are we any good at
> those?

There's some pretty good data about education/campaigns and teen pregnancy if
you care to google for it. Basically, yes, it works.

~~~
DanBC
> Basically, yes, it works.

It doesn't seem to work that well.

[https://discover.dc.nihr.ac.uk/portal/article/4000763/teachi...](https://discover.dc.nihr.ac.uk/portal/article/4000763/teaching-
sexual-health-at-school-improved-knowledge-but-not-safe-sex-practices)

> School-based sexual health interventions improved knowledge and attitudes in
> school students up to 18. However, they failed to consistently improve safe
> sex practices or reduce unwanted pregnancies. Abstinence-based messages were
> least effective.

> This review of reviews included 37 systematic reviews of school-based sexual
> health interventions. It excluded low-quality reviews and spanned 1990 to
> 2016, so is likely to reflect the best evidence available on the topic.

~~~
ghaff
I'm not an expert but my understanding is that PSAs have a pretty mixed record
historically (including some that, strictly from an advertising impact
perspective, were pretty well done). e.g. Keep America Beautiful.

In conjunction with other actions, behaviors such as smoking can be altered.
But it takes a lot of wood behind a lot of arrows to shift public attitudes.

------
dogruck
I reject the notion of "fake service dog."

I understand the point about the official, narrow definition of a service dog.
Also, I don't dispute that many people claim service dogs that don't meet that
definition.

But that feels like the debate about Illegal Immigrants. One side says "what
part of _illegal_ don't you understand" and the other responds with "hey,
these are good humans."

I think that if a human says their dog provides a service, that the discussion
stops there. The more you attempt to push back, the more people will
explicitly circumvent it.

And really -- is this a major problem?

~~~
nwhatt
Did you read the article? Do you know anyone with a service dog? There are
lots of non profits dedicated to raising dogs and working with people with
disabilities. I suggest you find one and volunteer.

This is a major problem for a small number of people. It's crippling though -
This creep towards ESA is both actively impairing the ability of service dogs
to work, and passively hurting perceptions.

I'm just summarizing a well reasoned article to you, so please go back and
read it again.

~~~
dogruck
Yes, I did read the article -- and I reject its premise.

Thank you for the summary and for your pompous and ignorant response to it.

In college, I had a sight-impaired friend with a guide dog. That dog worked
around street noise, farm animals, and unruly pets.

To be constructive -- what is your specific solution to the problem? Anything
other than "non profit and volunteer, bro!"

~~~
nwhatt
My solution: 1) Encourage people be advocates for people with disabilities
(ideally not by being pompous). 2) Educate others about what service dogs
actually do - in articles such as this one (I didn't write this article but
thought it was constructive).

At it's core - there will always be people who want to bring their dogs into
places that only service dogs can go.

The author is making a case for alternative path, such as canine good citizen
certification, whereby people who would otherwise slap a vest on their pet can
bring their dogs into restaurants, stores, etc. This will ideally decrease
people impersonating service animals at the margins, and lead to a better
environment for actual service dogs.

