Hi Willie,

No offense taken,

 Quote:

The ADA which is a federal law, defines a service animal as such....

I did not mean federal "certification" , but those dogs that meet the ADA's requirement of a service animal, many don't, I think many of us have witnessed this!

 Quote:

There is no federally approved test or testing standards. If the dog or animal meets the ADA requirements it is a service animal.



The delta society, Iaadp, or Assistance Dogs International and any other number of organizations have their own standards and tests..but there is no FEDERAL test or certification.

I know there is no Federal approved test for service dogs, and I was stating that there are only a handful of organizations that actually test the dogs, some you have mentioned above.

 Quote:

If the dog or animal meets the ADA requirements it is a service animal.

I think there are many people, like the OP's mentioned person, that could benifit from these organizations, or a trainer that understands the requirements of the ADA.

 Quote:

Quote:
I am sure a dog with no OB, and not housebroken would qualify!



Qualify for dismissal, ..I had put that in a previous post {If they banned one for smell, I am sure they would ban one for housbreaking issues!}

I am sorry the post was confusing, most service dog talk is!

Yup most service dog talk is...and that's a huge problem.
Everyone has their own standards......
Its frustrating, and so then you get the nutters that make it hard on the rest of us.

Sort of related is all the rip off schemes out there..people charging $300.00 for a $6 id badge, $4 crappy cape, a photo copy "certificate" and a piece of crap "back pack"
Drives me nuts.......

I so really wish that there was some standard federal test out there.........something like the CGC...or even if they couldn't get a federal test organized, fine..then just require that all service dogs at least pass the CGS.
Just say'n
I will now step down off my soap box.

 Quote:

Sort of related is all the rip off schemes out there..people charging $300.00 for a $6 id badge, $4 crappy cape, a photo copy "certificate" and a piece of crap "back pack"
Drives me nuts.......

Yep!

Having a CGC requirement would be a great idea and I bet the majority of owners of legitimate service dogs would be for it, especially considering all the scammers and cheats out there these days.

Also, I believe "task" in the case of alert dogs (i.e. alerting blood sugar or seizures) would be what the dog actually does to alert the person. As far as I know dogs can't be trained to alert, but they can be trained to do something specific such as paw the person or nudge the person with his/her nose.

You know, i was talking with my husband after I said that and he brought up a really good point.
He pointed out that the CGC isn't a good idea for a standard because I realllly don't want Eddie to hold an Iron down stay...If I get off balance, I want Eddie there...even If I had him on down stay.
Its called Intelligent disobedience..and its really needed....
The danger is that since service dogs need to do so many different things, standardization is a "danger" to their usefulness.
Tammy and I were talking about it via PM, and she really agreed......
But, there has to be some sort of minimum standard of decent behavior that is expected...not only for the public's safety/comfort, but for the disabled person's protection from scammers.

 Quote:

Also, I believe "task" in the case of alert dogs (i.e. alerting blood sugar or seizures) would be what the dog actually does to alert the person. As far as I know dogs can't be trained to alert, but they can be trained to do something specific such as paw the person or nudge the person with his/her nose.

In some cases they can be trained for some of these things, but for most, you are right.
You make excellent points here, and this is what I was trying to say to the OP.
These so called service dogs should be trained to indicate somehow that the blood sugar is low.
I think that this thought process is behind the wording of the law..."individually trained".
I don't think that this conflicts with the Psychiatric dogs either...
For instance, the autism dog mentioned...is actually trained to stay by the autistic child...and to be beaten on in a tantrum, and to not let the child go certain places...these are trained things. A real autism dog doesn't just sit there with the child. No dog will just sit with a child for 16 hours a day...that in its self is a trained behavior.
These things can be pointed to under the law as individually trained behaviors.
There is a difference between a psychiatric service dog that is actually trained to do specific things, and an emotional support animal, that might or might not be trained in specific behaviors.
ESA do not have the same rights as service dogs.
I said I was getting off my soap box...oh well.

My husband is a Type 1 diabetic. I've been thinking about this thread off and on.... Seems like the person with the "service dog" is a real pill. To the OP's original comments about the situation: I'm assuming the diabetic person in question is also a type 1 since the dog is trained to sense low blood sugars. The first thing I found funny about that is that you mentioned that they also complain because you have foods around that are high in sugar. Well if she's worried about low blood sugars than its only RATIONAL to have sugary foods around. How else are you going to get your blood sugars up lady? We've got candy bars sprinkled through our whole house, cars, and anywhere else we go for that very reason. Sometimes blood sugar levels need to come up in a hurry.

My husband was diagnosed almost 15 years ago. He has never ONCE made a statement that its anyone else's duty to keep himself stable. Sure, he has endocrinologists and pump therapists that help him manage his disease but any team of doctors will tell you that it is up to the patient and no one else (unless the patient is a child and too young to understand) to keep themselves on track.

Its nice when other people take it upon themselves to learn a little about the disease and know what to watch for and how to assist if there are problems, but it is certainly not your responsibility. If you are TOO sensitive, she will say that you are discriminating. If you are not sensitive enough, then you are just a horrible person. And then there's my family- who refuse to let diabetes rule our lives.

I know I'm totally bypassing the whole service dog part of the equation, but those were the thoughts I had when reading the original post.

I believe that just because a dog has a CGC or even an obedience title it doesn't mean the dog would never break the command. I know of someone who put a CD on their guide dog and I'm sure the dog still practiced intelligent disobedience when necessary. And, of course, there could easily be some modifications/adjustments for service dogs. For example if the person the dog assists were to lose their balance and the dog got up out of a down to assist the person, the dog would still pass. Or if it alerted instead of going down on command, it would still pass since the alerting would take priority as long as it could be shown later that the dog understands and will obey the command unless it must disobey in order to serve its person. Just some thoughts.

 Quote: Willie Tilton

I said I was getting off my soap box...oh well.

You so totally need to stay on your soap box! I think the information you are providing is accurate and valuable

Here's a random question: Is diabetes even considered a disability as defined by the ADA? I'm a diabetic, and so far as I know it isn't. Does anybody else have different information?

Here you go Kristel:


1. When is diabetes a disability under the ADA?

Diabetes is a disability when it substantially limits one or more of a person's major life activities. Major life activities are basic activities that an average person can perform with little or no difficulty, such as eating or caring for oneself. Diabetes also is a disability when it causes side effects or complications that substantially limit a major life activity. Even if diabetes is not currently substantially limiting because it is controlled by diet, exercise, oral medication, and/or insulin, and there are no serious side effects, the condition may be a disability because it was substantially limiting in the past (i.e., before it was diagnosed and adequately treated). Finally, diabetes is a disability when it does not significantly affect a person's everyday activities, but the employer treats the individual as if it does. For example, an employer may assume that a person is totally unable to work because he has diabetes. Under the ADA, the determination of whether an individual has a disability is made on a case-by-case basis.


http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/diabetes.html



And thanks for the encouragement...I sure don't want to bore anyone!!!!!

As far as I know it is. Here's a site with a lot of links geared specifically towards Diabetes Alert Dogs. I found it pretty helpful.

Diabetic Alert Dogs