Service Dogs with Thru-Hikers, GSMNP

[Slo-go'en]

I just ask that people with service animals respect the rules which forbid pets in a few small sections of the AT for the very reasons they are in place. With that, I'm out of here and will definately no longer comment on this subject. In fact, I'm putting the whole dog forum on ignor so I won't again be tempted.

[The Weasel]

Well, Slo-go'en, it's fascinating that you want the last word so bad you "ignore" the whole topic. But for those who read here more: No one - NO ONE - is entitled to "ask that people with service animals respect the rules which forbid pets in a few small sections" of any trail.
1) They aren't pets. They are necessary components of us handicapped people trying to function like you lucky folk with good ears.
2) There are multiple federal and state laws which trump these rules in so far as they involve service animals, just as there are federal and state laws that override other "rules" that have, in the past (and a few places even today) forbidden people entry to public accommodations because of their race or religion. I'm sorry; civil rights kind of matter, and just because you don't agree doesn't mean YOU can ignore THOSE rules.

TW

[HooKooDooKu]

Respect the rules posted for pets

Service Animals are not pets

Is it just my imagination, or didn't we go over this in the other thread just 3 days ago?

[The Weasel]

I've suggested to Alligator merging the threads.

[redzombie]

Speaking as someone who has a service animal I can tell you their is a lot of Miss information on this forum. Anyone who as a service animal is very educated and should know these things. I am planning on hiking this year with my service dog who is a great dane. The information I share, I share on good faith and hope no one abuses it. It is because of people who abuse the system that people who are legit have a hard time, not to mention ignorance is contagious. Lastly, those who think a service dog is cool, its not. Having a pet is cool. Having to depend on someone else, always being questioned, stared at, having to explain yourself everyday and every time you go somewhere else, not to mention the logistics. It can be a nightmare, but also comes a new lease on life

[redzombie]

The ADA is Federal law, which means it applies everywhere and to everyone. Second their is not "Official Documentation". Documentation can be anything, a certificate of training, a letter from a private dog trainer, a letter from your doctor describing your disabilities, a letter from you psychiatrist, ect. There are all shorts of different types of service dogs. Seeing eye dogs, mobility dogs, epileptic alert dogs, epileptic response dogs, diabetic alert dogs, psychiatric service dogs for PTSD, autism ect. Then there are therapy dogs Those are for seeing sick kids in the hospital and nursing homes. The term emotional support dog is a term that is thrown around too much. (Hypothetical situation, example) Depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain and not every case is treatable with pills, and having a dog, just being a dog can and often helps mange said symptoms. Because the dog has not been trained to do a "duty" it is a support dog. As soon as that said dog is trained to perform a duty to help that depression it becomes a service dog.

[redzombie]

Their is no official training exam or test, and a pet can be trained into a service dog. Even owners can train their own service dogs. So their is no set guide on behavior. This is to allow equal access to those who could benefit from a service dog, as one that comes from a training organization can cost upwards to 50 grand. So the bottom line comes down to how do we as a public know when someone is lying. Common sense and talking to said person. A tea cup chihuahua is not going to be a seeing eye dog, or any kind of service dog (most likely). Most people who are legit don't mind you asking a few questions, and often times they will give more information then what is required, and will take the time to educate the public. Its the ones who get defensive and throw the ADA around that you have to watch for. Labs and Golden's are the most popular breeds for pets and service dogs, but if you are going to take the time to train a service dog to where you can depend on it, you want to make sure you have a breed that fits your needs. Last note, a vest is not required, but is helpful. Be weary of those dog owners who throw certificates in your face and claim it is "proof". You can buy any vest or paper mill certificate online. There are a few voluntary sites that a lot of organizations and trainers use. The most common (voluntary) website is The United States Service Dog Registry. Again anyone can falsely sign their dog up, sure, but this is one registry that more and more trainers are using so their is some sort of tracking for the dogs.

[HooKooDooKu]

New NPS rules for service animals: http://www.nps.gov/news/release.htm?id=1582

National Park Service Press Release

For Immediate Release: April 21, 2014 Contact(s): Jeffrey Olson, 202-208-6843 National Park Service Updates Rule about Service Animals Public comment sought through June 17 on www.regulations.gov WASHINGTON – The National Park Service (NPS) invites public comment on a proposed rule to revise regulations governing service animals in national parks. Last amended in 1983, federal statutes governing accessibility for persons with disabilities, as well as the use of service animals, have changed significantly. Although federal agencies are not governed by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the NPS policy is to align its regulations with the ADA and make NPS facilities, programs, and services accessible to and usable by as many people as possible. The proposed rule would define a service animal as a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for persons with disabilities. The work or tasks a service animal is trained to perform must be directly related to the person’s disability. Other species of animals would not be considered service animals, but park superintendents would have the authority to allow the use of miniature horses by individuals with disabilities when appropriate, depending on the type, size, and weight of the horse. The proposed rule would differentiate service animals from pets, domestic animals, feral animals, livestock, and pack animals and would describe the circumstances under which service animals would be allowed in a park area. Due to the serious potential for disease transmission between domestic animals and wildlife, park superintendents could require proof of vaccination against diseases transmissible to wildlife from service animals. The proposed rule, 36 Code of Federal Regulations § 2.15, is available for review presently. The National Park Service will accept public comment on the rule through June 17, 2014, through the Federal Rulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov.

[bemental]

As someone who is planning a NOBO through hike with a service dog starting March of 2015, I see a few things I'd like to address in this thread:

First, a prescription is not required to obtain a service dog. While prescriptions are sometimes written, there is no pharmacy where you turn in a script, and get a dog. A *recommendation* from a medical provider (whether a therapist, M.D., etc), is one of many first steps to acquiring a trained service dog.

Second, in regards to service dogs and the National Park System (Federally Regulated): http://www.nps.gov/policy/serviceanimals.pdf

"After careful review of the issues related to the use of service animals in the national parks, and based on the advice provided by the Solicitor’s Office, we conclude that we are legally required by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to allow all types of service animals into the parks."

"According to DOJ guidance, in most instances we carmot require individuals to show proof of disability nor to show official certification for their service animal."

"If you are not certain that an animal is a service animal, you may ask the person who has the animal if it is a service animal required because of a disability. However, an individual with a disability is not likely to be carrying documentation of his or her medical condition or disability, and such documentation may not be required as a condition for allowing them in the park."

Third, the comments regarding the denying of someone with a disability access to a public facility because of their requisite accommodations (in this case, a trail shelter) is asinine. What isn't outlandish, and this is extremely important, is that the service animal MUST be trained well enough to not show aggression, fear, excessive startle reactions, etc. while being in said public place. We train our dogs *extremely* well, but please remember that in the end, they're just dogs!

And please, don't even think about trying to charge someone with a disability **extra**, because that's totally illegal (http://www.ada.gov/t3hilght.htm):

"Extra charges may not be imposed on individuals with disabilities to cover the costs of measures necessary to ensure nondiscriminatory treatment, or to cover the costs of measures used as alternatives to barrier removal."

[imscotty]

It would seem from the above post that there is no way for officials to legally ascertain if a person with an animal is entitled to bring that animal into otherwise prohibited areas (like GSMNP) or if the animal is indeed trained to fulfill a service function. It makes me wonder how Baxter State Park managed to determine that at least two hikers brought 'fake' service dogs into that park and fined them (according to Bissell's letter to the ATC).

I would like to see a system developed to credential service dogs and their owners. Much like having handicapped plates (and fines for those who do not) help keep parking spaces free for those who most need them, credentialing service animals will help minimize the harm caused by fakes and abusers.

[rickb]

It makes me wonder how Baxter State Park managed to determine that at least two hikers brought 'fake' service dogs into that park and fined them (according to Bissell's letter to the ATC).

Trained law enforcement officers can be very effective getting some people to make admissions and/or otherwise incriminate themselves.

[Traveler]

It would seem from the above post that there is no way for officials to legally ascertain if a person with an animal is entitled to bring that animal into otherwise prohibited areas (like GSMNP) or if the animal is indeed trained to fulfill a service function. It makes me wonder how Baxter State Park managed to determine that at least two hikers brought 'fake' service dogs into that park and fined them (according to Bissell's letter to the ATC).

I would like to see a system developed to credential service dogs and their owners. Much like having handicapped plates (and fines for those who do not) help keep parking spaces free for those who most need them, credentialing service animals will help minimize the harm caused by fakes and abusers.

That would be my preference as well. I know a someone who have credentials for a service animal so they may keep a dog in a new apartment building that does not allow pets. She has no emotional/physical needs for one, but found some cracks in the process that allowed her to get the dog that designation. If one can do this, hundreds can as well.

In order to preserve the integrity of the service animal concept, it needs to be as bullet proof as possible.

[swjohnsey]

Yep, if you want to take your dog just call it a service dog. You're bound to have PTSD from something.

[Slo-go'en]

(b) Service animals. (1) A service animal may accompany an individual with a disability in a park area where members of the public are allowed or may accompany an employee with a disability in a park area where employees are allowed.
(i) The work or tasks the service animal is trained to perform must be directly related to the individual's disability. In making this determination, an authorized person may observe the animal and ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. Authorized persons must not ask about the nature or extent of a person's disability, nor may they require documentation of the disability or proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal.
(ii) The crime-deterrent effects of an animal's presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this provision.
(2) A service animal must be controlled at all times with a harness, leash, or other tether, unless the restraint device would interfere with the service animal's safe, effective performance of work or tasks or the individual's disability prevents using these devices. In those cases, the disabled individual must be able to recall the service animal to his or her side promptly using voice, signals, or other effective means of control. This must be demonstrated when requested by an authorized person.
(3) An individual may be asked to remove a service animal from an area closed to pets if:
(i) The animal is out of control and the animal's handler does not take effective action to control it;
(ii) The animal is not housebroken; or
(iii) It is not readily apparent and the individual with a disability is unwilling or unable to articulate or demonstrate the work or task the animal has been trained to perform, consistent with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
(4) The prohibitions in paragraph (a)(3) of this section also apply to the use of a service animal.
(5) Upon determining that the use of service animals in a specific area poses a threat to the health or safety of people or wildlife, the superintendent may require proof of current vaccinations, impose additional conditions or restrictions, or close the area to service animals. Any area closed to service animals must be closed to pets. In determining whether the use of service animals poses a threat under this paragraph, the superintendent must:Show citation box

[HooKooDooKu]

Yep, if you want to take your dog just call it a service dog. You're bound to have PTSD from something.

ADA rules do not apply to "emotional support" animals. The service animal must provide some sort of service (i.e. task) for the owner/handler.

[Starchild]

ADA rules do not apply to "emotional support" animals. The service animal must provide some sort of service (i.e. task) for the owner/handler.

'Emotional support animal' just seems like the very definition of a pet.

[Mags]

ADA rules do not apply to "emotional support" animals. The service animal must provide some sort of service (i.e. task) for the owner/handler.

Most businesses and govt officials are very hesitant, and pretty much tiptoe, when it comes to service animals.

Legally, all that can be asked

(1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

So, if a person simply says "Yes" and "Medical alert" , most officials are hesitant to pursue beyond that point. As with others, I am surprised BSP was able to ferret out the owners with fake service dog credentials. Very unusual in our law-suit happy society.

Hence the "loophole" that many less than scrupulous people are using to their benefit.

[rickb]

As with others, I am surprised BSP was able to ferret out the owners with fake service dog credentials.

Have you ever gone to court to contest a traffic ticket?

A very high percentage of (guilty) people will admit to their infraction when pressed-- often with a "yes, but".

Law enforcement officers routinely use their skills to solicit admissions of guilt, and remarkably will even get citizens with contraband in their cars to agree to search. No surprise that a 23-year old kid from the burbs might fold under even a bit of pressure regarding their first big "caper", IMHO.

[MuddyWaters]

If they can ask that the animal demonstrate the task, it would seem pretty easy to determine.

$260 fine isnt enough. Ive paid that for a rolling stop turning a corner at a red light, captured by a camera. $1000+ would be more reasonable today

[Mags]

A very high percentage of (guilty) people will admit to their infraction when pressed-- often with a "yes, but".

No doubt. However the fact that so many people abuse the loophole shows that the fact BSP doing what they did is unusual. That's all I am saying.

Again, most businesses and govt officials very much tip-toe when it comes to service animals. The bad publicity can quite literally almost ruin a business even if the person has what appears to be fake service animal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4075308.html

Business owners also face problems. In August, Russell Ireland banned a dog from his Oxford, Mass., diner after its owner put a plate of food on the floor for the dog.
James Glasser claimed it was a legitimate service animal and took part in a boycott of the diner. There was talk of a lawsuit. Ireland apologized. The dog's actual status is unclear.
Cook Justin Fisher said his boss' reputation took a beating. Business is just now returning to normal.

May be a legitimate service animal. Maybe not. If I was a business owner, I would just assume "yes" to be safe.

Yep, I'd be on my tippie-toes if I was a business. A 23 year old may fold. A well-heeled 50 year old with a good lawyer may not. And, based on what I've been reading, many govt agencies react similarly.