How about public access for all WELL-BEHAVED, TRAINED, CIVILIZED pets? With an appropriate public access test and revocable license.

I don't want to share a restaurant or a train car with someone's yapping purse hamster or ill-mannered bruiser any more than the most committed dog-hater does.

And believe it or not, I totally hate it when people line up to gush about one of my dogs' perfect behavior when I have him or her out in public. Because their training is just about good enough, nothing special, and it just means that most people have never seen a trained dog in public before.

If pet owners had the opportunity to train to pass a public access test, it would provide an incentive for them to teach their dogs some social graces.

I agree 100% with this. I've always thought that the CGC test (Canine Good Citizen test) which shows that dogs are well-behaved in public (can be petted by strangers, can be handled by others, can walk nicely in a crowd, including one with dogs, and has basic obedience), could be a wonderful way to allow SOME dogs access to places where others cannot go.

It frustrates me to no end that, because of people's not bothering to train their dogs and not bothering to clean up after their dogs, I've lost access to a lot of places (including public transportation -- I would LOVE to take a train someplace!) with my very well-behaved and trained dog.

AKC screwed the pooch with the CGC by making it too easy as written and not conducting quality control as administered. Too much fudging by evaluators who want to play nice, and I've witnessed this personally many times.

A credible public access test would have to be significantly more stringent, in my opinion.

I think the test as written demonstrates a well-behaved dog. Right now it tests basic obedience (sit, stay, down, come), walking politely on a leash, being able to walk by other dogs without reacting, being able to meet people without going crazy, and not reacting with aggression to things that might startle the dog or things that are "strange." What else would you add to it to make it more stringent?

Now, obviously this would require the testers to actually only pass dogs that should and not to pass ones just because they want to be "nice." So that would need to change. But the test seems pretty good to me. The only thing I could think of, and this would be if they wanted to allow dogs in restaurants (which I find highly unlikely) would be not begging and settling nicely under or near a table. But as I can't imagine with health codes and stuff that would be likely at this time, just going into stores without food or whatnot, the test seems good to me.

Sit and down stays off-leash.

An off-leash recall *through* the crowd of people and at least two dogs. Minimum distance 50'.

A long down-stay, off leash, at least ten minutes, with distractions.

Revert to the old separation test, which was the dog tethered and "unsupervised," not held by a stranger.

Appropriate response to a rude, intrusive stranger. (neutral or friendly or hide behind mommy if the dog wishes, but no aggression or fleeing in terror)

"Strange dog" test should have the dogs passing on the inside, not with the handlers between them.

This is all just minor tweaking (and partly a return to the original standard) in terms of administering the test, but makes a world of difference in what is being proofed.

I definitely agree on the strange dog test. The unsupervised one isn't a bad idea though I don't think people should EVER tie their dog up unsupervised (I'm aware people do, but I never ever would -- I trust her; I don't trust other people!). And DEFINITELY the response to a rude stranger. I'd like to see "appropriate response to children" there too but I'm not even sure how one would test this.

I'm not so sure about the off leash stuff. I guess it would depend on what sorts of places this would grant access to. Most of the things I'm thinking of (public transporation, etc.) would require dogs to remain on leash and close to their owner.

Though I guess it could be one of those "if you can do these X things, then anything less than that would be easy for you."

I sort of wonder if there could be different levels of this, even. Dogs who pass on leash stuff are granted access to ABC, while dogs who continue on and pass the off leash access are granted access to ABC and XYZ as well.

Of course, at this point I'd be happy for dogs to be granted access to places on leash!

One trains/proofs/tests for off-leash reliability, even if one doesn't intend to have the dog off-leash in a particular circumstance, because leashes fail, so training must not.

There is no harm in keeping a truly trained (meaning, obedient when naked) animal on a leash in crowded circumstance. There is significant harm in presenting a dog as trained when that training evaporates without the potential for immediate physical compulsion.

I once saw a "service dog" in an airport take off running down the concourse when the owner fumbled the leash at the security checkpoint as she was struggling to get her carry-on junk back together, as we all do. A passer-by had to stomp on the leash. Owner showed no sign of shame. The owner had a visible disability; no idea if the dog actually did anything to mitigate it.

I had my SAR dog with me. (Legitimate operational SAR dogs can fly in-cabin as a privilege extended by many US airlines.) I put my carry-on crap on the belt, stripped off my pocket/belt crap and shoes and put it in the tray, removed my dog's collar, leash, and vest and put those in the tray, sent her through the metal detector, downed her on the other side, had my usual three tries and wanding to find that yes, my zipper is metal, then heeled my naked dog to the end of the belt output to re-rig us both.

I don't think that a 10' send-out, a stay, or loose and imprecise heeling without any physical restraint are particularly advanced obedience skills, or unreasonable to expect of a dog that gets public access privileges.

I *do* think it is unreasonable to claim public access privileges, for any reason, for a dog that does not obey when the leash is dropped. It's like saying that someone is an excellent driver just so long as no one changes lanes without signaling in front of him.

You know, it says something about me and my dog that I didn't even THINK about the possibility of a dropped leash. My dog's so well-trained that if the leash is dropped she stays put. With all the untrained dogs around, you think I'd consider that not everyone's dog does that!

Excellent points, all.

I very much agree with Crysiana, and do not see the value of off-lead testing if the dogs are required to always be on lead by municipal code. Of course I also say this because my borzoi are very well behaved on lead, but I would NEVER trust them off-lead near another person's cat or pocket-puppy, another person's steak dinner, nor within a half mile of any highway.

But I do take them nearly everywhere with me and simply do not patronize places that restrict well behaved dogs on lead.

Just my early morning comment so subsequent posts will magically appear on my phone throughout the day.

I could not agree more with this post. Just one point on the "Further, this dog looked for all the world like a premium exhibition candidate".

Here in Ontario, it is common for Labrador breeders to donate a puppy or two from our litters to the service dog organization (which covers most of English Canada). That means that the service dog you are seeing may well have the structure of a Champion - because the genetics are identical to that of our show dogs.

I'd prefer to eat dinner at a nice restaurant in the company of fellow diners' well-behaved dogs vs. their horrible, whining, screaming, running, unsanitary children. Double ditto for plane rides.

Can you tell that I had a poor experience this past weekend? I'd rather have ordered takeout and eaten at the barn with my horse vs. listen to the high-pitched shrieks coming from the next table: a toddler out well past her bedtime. What are parents thinking?

Unfortunately, we live in a rude, entitled world. If it were a free-for-all, people wouldn't hesitate to bring their ill-behaved pets out in public, too. Some people's animals act like, well, animals.

i am annoyed by obnoxious children as much as the next person.
But do you KNOW that this toddler was tired and out past their bedtime (ie: poor parenting)? I think a lot of people are quick to be annoyed with parents of screaming toddlers and are quick to pass judgement.
But would you change your mind if you found out that the child had Autism?
Should children with mental, emotional, or physical handicaps (and their parents) be barred from restaurants so you can enjoy a peaceful meal? if the answer is 'no', then how do we determine which parents are worthy of our ire, and which are worthy of our sympathy?

These inconsiderate, clueless people showed up for dinner at 8:45PM. The kid appeared to be about 18 months old. I do not care if the child had a disability or not; that's much too late for any young child to be out in public, particularly at a fancy restaurant. The kid screamed intermittently until around quarter past ten, when my party finished with dessert and coffee and finally left.

As I said: we live in a rude, entitled world. Furthermore, anyone who could afford to pay the check at that restaurant (much nicer than my usual fare - we were out with my SO's business associates) should be able to afford a babysitter rather than annoy everyone else in the restaurant. The poor child was obviously exhausted and didn't want to be there. I blame the parents.

Actually, it wouldn't matter to me if the child was autistic or just poorly parented. It is up to the (presumably) responsible adults in charge to make sure the behavior of all in their party is polite and does not disturb other patrons. Ditto for pet 'parents.' If you can't keep your charges under control and reasonably appropriate in public, you need to stop and re-evaluate your plans and figure out what you need to do so that you do not disturb others. This counts for adults who have forgotten their manners too.

Hmm. Aren't you the person ranting on the "puggle" thread, making tons of assumptions on the condition your relatives new dog came from? I happened to see this right after I basically wrote the exact same post, making the same points to YOU that you just made to Equine DVM. So it's not OK to assume about toddlers but it IS ok to assume about dogs?

I absolutely agree with this and on the whole, people and their caterwauling children are far more disturbing than all but the most uncontrollable dog. I can just think of the number of times in the last week I've nearly been tripped up by children who aren't watching where they are going.

Just a quick comment about the breed that prompted Dr. K to find a way to protect a dog in need. Check out this Miracle Dog and then maybe consider changing the breed name to Pat-Bull. Better yet, stop the Breed Specific Bans. http://www.facebook.com/ThePatrickMiracle

I remember this story. This dog was in such bad shape.

I am glad to see him looking 500% better.

I've been asked on a number of occasions when traveling by regular pet folks about how they can get their dog "service dog qualified" so they can fly them. It irks me and I know I get asked a lot, at least more than most, b/c I don't have any outwardly visible disabilities. I've been asked a lot for my dog's credentials, though I don't legally have to produce them.

While working along side a lead trainer for Paws With A Cause we encouraged Chicago Police officers to ask the service dog owner to articulate what service the dog provides and if applicable, to demonstrate.

It's fraud, plain and simple, to say your pet is a service dog when it's not.
Report these folks:
http://www.justice.gov/oig/FOIA/hotline.htm

I agree with some of the above posts, my dogs are better behaved than many children I see. They also listen to me!

I remember the post. I did not really get what all the fuss was about. If someone was coming to take my dog and kill it: I would have no problem if claiming it was a service dog would save it's life.

As for fake service dogs, I agree. Only real service dogs should be able to get the service dog vest.

As far as the pointer goes. I am afraid it may be possible you are profiling based on looks. We all know where that gets us.

it would be like looking at someone that parks in a handicapped zone and declare they are not handicapped because they "don't look handicapped".

I, too, get asked all the time what it takes to make their dog a service dog....

This is what I tell them:
1) Go out and get hit by a truck and become paralyzed from the waist down, develop life threatening seizures which are painful at best, come down with Multiple Sclerosis and spend your life not knowing when you get up in the AM if you will be able to move or not.
2) Spend well over $20,000.00 on training your dog(500 hours of training, hip/elbow exrays/thyroid testing/cardiac testing/eye testing---don't want to take an unhealthy dog out in public, do you?)
3) Be prepared to be harasses, bothered, teased, condemned, and just downright bothered all the time.

Most of them shut up after #1,

If they don't, I usually respond with "Are you naturally this stupid and ignorant, or did you go to school and take lessons for it?" Yep, I have no patience for it.

I am tired of being out in public with my well trained Rottie service dog(Whom, by the way, competes in AKC Conformation, obedience and herding---all three of my service dogs do----and, yes, you can have more than 1 service dog---I have more than one wheelchair. Many people have more than one pair of eyeglasses, etc...All, are however, trained to mitigate my disability, and each does a different task----Largo alerts to seizures and picks up dropped objects and at one time, pulled my wheelchair. Mister-Mister retrieves, alerts to seizures, pulls the wheelchair, opens doors, and provides other brace work and Jenka alerts to sounds(I am hearing impaired. Jenka does not go out in public, as I do not consider her a public access dog.

Anyway, I am tired of going to Boca Town Center to have my dogs attacked from across the room by 2 obnoxious Bichons. Or the ornery shitzu. The Bichons drew blood on my Rottie, who was in a down stay at my feet, 20 feet away from the bichons starting point(these dogs have attacked at the mall before)Largo did not respond(good dog), but yet, it was "ALL THAT VICIOUS ROTTWEILER's FAULT!"

Sigh....

Amen to that. It is quite true that when a little dog bothers and attacks a big dog ( esp those BD's that are thought of as vicious based on breed)it is the big dog that is always at fault and blamed.

I just had to agree with you!

My Rottie (who is not a service dog, but pretty well trained) was casually walking with me the other day when a tiny poodle-like object came flying out of an apartment and latched onto my dogs neck. It feet weren't even touching the ground while it growled and shook like a hooked fish! Of course, the owner comes out and yells "Dont let that vicious dog hurt Fluffy (or whatever its name was)". Um, what about your dog hanging off my dogs neck and my dog looking at me in a what-do-I-do way says my dog is the vicious one?

Im glad to see Im not the only one dealing with these sort of issues!

Do wonderful job, Some will always break the rules. To save a Pet-Kids-life. Make them a real Service Dog. Why not ? Judge not, unless you be Judge. Unless you walk in a man,s or Ladies's shoes, you do not know what you would do. Doctor Khuly cares, I can only hope, we would have more like her.

TheDogTrainer: I will soon be working with CJ Puotinen on a series of articles about biodetection dogs (e.g., seizure alert) and service dogs for the Whole Dog Journal. We'd love to talk to you about your dogs. Please contact me, my contact information is on my web site at www.dogaware.com, or email me, comments @ dogaware.com (not sure if it's OK to post email addresses or not).
Mary Straus

Sam isn't a certified service dog--he didn't really start out to serve as one--yet, as my health decreases, I have found him to be a natural. However, the only time he is "on duty" is when I am home. He helps me when I get disoreiented and he warns of seizures, helps me up when I fall and returns my attention back to reality when I disassociate.

That said--yes, he is a service dog and I could technically have a doctor and psychiatrist both verify his presence is necessary. Yet, I don't consider this a reason to take him places I would not have to start with. He is needed in my home, not in public (which I rarely venture into anyway).

Is he what others would consider a "fake" service dog? Maybe, but he has more than once saved me from grave disaster. I would never, however, think to use the term "service dog" to gain special privileges for him. The only time I have used the term was when I wanted a house and she insisted he be kept in the basement until "he gets used to the House"! I decided, however, that while I could fight it, I didn't want to live somewhere that had such an attitude about him--so passed on the house.

Service dog or not--he will always live where I do. That is his right as part of the family--no matter what role he fills and I won't move where he is not allowed. He does not belong in a restaurant, grocery store or any other public place where I can readily receive the needed help I may need. I won't ask for special privileges based on the service he does---but as with all my furkids, I will demand respect as the living entity he is.

It is wonderful that Sam has brought so much to your life.

Go Sam!

I HAVE an SD... in fact he is my second boy. Hugo is a European Doberman Pinscher on whom I rely. He is a medical alert service dog, and a REAL gem! I've had many people refuse him entry... I had an apartment manager ask to see my medical records(!) and then send me a 'regrets' letter (when I refused) stating that I did not LOOK disabled! - a major lawsuit waiting to happen.

The misinformed public are the bane of our existence. I HAVE NO TIME STUPID PEOPLE... the law is the law! Not every SD is a golden retriever!

Asking to see someone else's medical records is such a major no-no. Think HIPPA.

However, I understand the apartment manager wanting assurance that the SD is legitimate. Why wouldn't confirmation from a doctor that you have a disability and need your SD have sufficed?

Not LOOKING disabled has nothing to do with BEING disabled.

Since you have it in writing that you were denied an apartment because the apartment manager deemed you "healthy", I hope you brought suit instead of being disgusted and walking away.

I actually have a few instances over which I could sue... sadly one is Irvine Animal Control who refused Hugo an SD tag this year because he was not trained by an accepted (?) trainer... also a no-no. I always carry an Rx PLUS a letter, and he almost always has a vest on and a picture ID... and yes, they SHOULD suffice. Some people/retailers are wonderful, though. Knott's Berry Farm bends over backwards to accommodate!!!! - so does the San Diego Zoo, and Wild Animal Park!!!

I forgive people their intrusiveness when their curiosity stems from a desire to understand the animal's capabilities, etc. Also, many, many people do not know the difference between a SERVICE ANIMAL and a THERAPY ANIMAL. At least I have a DOG (which is normally accepted as an SD) and not... say... a monkey! - I REALLY pitty them the hassles they must endure!! :)

This is an extremely upsetting topic for me. I am deaf and have a Hearing Ear Dog. I depend on her immensely.

In Great Britain, they have to be certified or you can't have/ call one. While I trained Emily myself, I would have a been willing to have her certified just to refute the fraud.

I feel that USA laws should be changed!!

This is a subject near to my heart. I was actually recently vaguely considering cheating on this law, though I've always been firmly against doing that, but it was suggested to me as a way to get around my transportation concerns. I was heavily castigated by a couple of friends for even mentioning the consideration.

I didn't WANT to, but the airlines make it very difficult to transport a pet if it's not a service animal. Not to mention the safety concerns. I normally just don't plan on going anywhere I can't drive, but want to take my dog to world team tryouts enough to actually fly. The airline that would fly from my local airport would charge me $200 EACH WAY to transport my dog. Making her flight more expensive than mine. I feel that if I have to pay more than the cost of my own ticket, the dog should be traveling in safety and comfort in the cabin, with snacks.

They also won't fly "short nosed breeds", which they classify mine as, if the temperature is going to be over 75 at any point. Which it probably won't be, but can't be guaranteed in early May. I know the temperatures won't be beyond what my dog can tolerate, but that airline's policy doesn't allow me to make that decision.

Instead, I'm driving 3 hrs each way to fly out of an airport in a different city, where the available airline charges a more reasonable $100 each way.

My dog is well behaved, and wouldn't have brought disrepute onto real service dogs. But I really do feel strongly about not cheating on this, so I'm not. It was a bit frustrating to get castigated by friends for even giving it a passing thought, though. I just wish there was a better way. I could even fit my dog into the largest of the carry-on bags, but I don't think they'd let me get away with it. That's another thing: 3 hour flight, if I can get the dog into the bag, and carry it, why should they care if she has to lie down and what she weighs?

It is not just the physically handicapped that benefit from service dogs. I have come upon two individuals with vested dogs, and at first, thought it was a fraud because the people seemed physically capable, but after spendng time in a room with them and their dog, it became obvious that the dog was providing an entirely different type of service. In the first case, enabling a woman suffering from a kind of agoraphobia to venture out; in the second, the owner was clearly mentally imbalanced and the dog helped her keep her symptoms in check.

Where is the line between an "emotional assistance" animal and a service dog?

Part of the problem is that it is very hard to find obective criteria for what is required to train a dog to be a service animal. I have not been able to find either standards or guidance, as I am interested in providing this information to someone I know.

For nearly half the people I know who have dogs, they are made more comfortable by their presence. The dogs are always fulfilling some function, and for those individuals with mental or emotional problems -- who get agitated in unfamiliar situations or dealing with people they don't know, suffer from panic disorders or social phobias -- the dogs certainly provide a service.

So, instead of drawing the circle so narrowly, and saying that only those dogs (or animals-) that provide assistance to the physically disabled can or should be classified as service animals, I believe we need to take a broader look at the other types of conditions people can have which are ameliorated by the comforting presence of an attentive pet or the particular ministrations of an animal. Then, come up with standards and programs for having those animals trained and certified.