People are really muddying the waters on the emotional support dog issue.
Landlords seem to be the toughest sell, and yet that is the right a psychiatric
patient specifically SHOULD have: to keep a companion animal in the
The Americans with Disabilities Act says the person can be reqiuired to
remove the dog if the dog's behavior is disruptive to the function of the place.
A widely used example is a dog barking in a theatre during a performance can
be required to be removed. The disabled handler of the dog is liable for any
damages. It seems that a landlord could require the person to move the dog
out of there if problems with noise, mess, damage, or threatening behavior to
other tenants occurs.The dog being kept for emotional support needs to be
suited to the housing facilities. That's an unpopular notion in this apartment
and condo age.
Public access rights are something else entirely. Just because you have a
prescription that provides for the dog to live with you doesn't mean you need
or should be allowed to have the dog go everywhere with you. Dogs provide
emotional benefits either way. So do other companion animals, for that matter.
One of the most widely cited studies was done with parakeets (budgies?).
One of the stories in the article is particularly troubling. When someone's
emotional/mental problem is the inability to control anger, is that person
suited to work a dog around the public? Service dogs MUST be under control. How
can a person who cannot control his or own behavior control that of the dog?
You don't have to be able to "manhandle" a dog physically, but you do have
to be able to give the dog direction so that as a team you are not a danger to
others, and you don't interfere with the business of a place. Either party
in a dispute in a public place can call the police. It does not require making
a disruptive scene.
As a store manager in my checkered past, I had a cranky old customer swear
that my assistant had short-changed him. That was highly unlikely, but I would
have given him the money to get him and his loud mouth out of the store.
My giving the guy the money was unacceptable to my assistant, however,
because he was a careful and honorable person and because you could have cut the
testosterone in the air with a knife. So, I called the police and an officer
came out and quietly and patiently explained to the one who would not leave
that he didn't have the right to stay in a crowded store and loudly proclaim to
all the other customers about his grievance. He was told if we came up long
on cash at the end of the day, we would contact him and he'd get the five
dollars he claimed he'd been shorted from a $20 bill.
So, how is that disabled people get away with making nasty scenes? Yes, they
can quietly stay there and call police (viva la cell phone) and wait for the
officer to come and take a report. A courteous, low-volume mention to the
business proprietor of that intention will likely eliminate the need for it.
My own disability is physical, my dog is courteous, I don't behave
defensively, and any questions I've had have been extremely polite--makes me get
misty-eyed how well my princess-dog and I are treated by strangers. Truthfully,
though, if businesses could get away with just denying access to service dogs,
they would. Especially big corporations (who control so much of our daily
world now) would just have a policy against ALL dogs, period. A few run-ins with
the Department of Justice, and they establish a policy to treat disabled
people and their dogs with the utmost courtesy. The pioneers who have gone
before me have cleared the way, and I'm grateful to them. Because they have
EDUCATED, not just sued, members of the public who are not going by "corporate
policy" are very accepting of my dog, too.
The pioneers are furious at the fakers, and I'm frightened by the fakers. I
fear they are going to cause me to lose the right I need to have my dog's
help. I fear they are going to make people so suspicious that going anywhere
will be a huge ordeal for me. Currently I don't take my dog when I go to
restaurants, and my health prevents me from traveling. The restaurant thing needs to
come soon. I'm getting by with hubby's help, but it's not always enough. I'm
told that the biggest problem with fraud is happening in travel.
And that leads to another issue that is contributing to this fakery, which
is how dogs fare on airplanes. They need to all be cared for safely and be
where their owners can monitor them, not just service dogs. Safety includes
safety from attack by other dogs, though, so having too many crowded together
would be asking for trouble. There have to be safe arrangements for dogs who are
not able to handle that, too.
Perhaps airlines could deal with problem dog owners the way utility
companies do. Utility companies get attorneys, and the post office cuts off mail
service even before a carrier is bitten. Besides suing you (or billing your
credit card!) for damages, perhaps the airline could put you and/or your dog off
in some town you had not planned to visit. Enforcement with teeth, so to
The world is changing when it comes to dogs, with lots of growing pains. In
many ways, the service dogs and the volunteer therapy dogs are carrying the
banners. I'm part of both groups, and it saddens me whenever anyone tarnishes
the trust we've built with the public.