Service Dogs with Thru-Hikers, GSMNP

[MuddyWaters]

I would hope that persons with real disabilities and service animals respect that there is a need to weed out frauds. Its in everyones best interest, they shouldnt feel harassed or such if they get questioned and observed. The simple truth is, too many ****ty people out there.

[Alligator]

I would hope that persons with real disabilities and service animals respect that there is a need to weed out frauds. Its in everyones best interest, they shouldnt feel harassed or such if they get questioned and observed. The simple truth is, too many ****ty people out there.

People with real disabilities and legitimate service animals should be okay with being profiled? Out for a walk on a trail, recreating, and they should be ok with questions beyond the scope of the law about their disabilities, their personal medical information?

[MuddyWaters]

People with real disabilities and legitimate service animals should be okay with being profiled? Out for a walk on a trail, recreating, and they should be ok with questions beyond the scope of the law about their disabilities, their personal medical information?

Not everyone may be familiar with all the "right" things they can ask by law, and what they cant.

If there were no fakers, or plain ignorant people, there wouldnt be any problems.

When dogs are not permitted somewhere, EVERY dog that shows up will be noticed. Sorry if that makes someone "profiled", its just a fact. I would expect getting defensive over being questioned does more harm than good, to both parties.

And id expect someone willing to find a lawyer and sue for emotional damages because they were questioned wrong , probably creates illwill against all people with service animals.

[Feral Bill]

Fake service dogs are all over. See this article, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...0/pets-allowed I see blatantly fake "service" dogs on public transit daily.

Absent a mandatory program of certification this will continue, and get worse.

[imscotty]

People with real disabilities and legitimate service animals should be okay with being profiled? Out for a walk on a trail, recreating, and they should be ok with questions beyond the scope of the law about their disabilities, their personal medical information?

I think it reasonable that persons with service animals be required to show some sort of official certification of their need to law enforcement and other officials. We require handicapped plates be obtained before people park in handicapped parking spaces, why not the same level of requirements for service animals? I argue that it is the interest of the truly disabled to lobby for this to happen to weed out the frauds.

[Alligator]

Not everyone may be familiar with all the "right" things they can ask by law, and what they cant.

If there were no fakers, or plain ignorant people, there wouldnt be any problems.

When dogs are not permitted somewhere, EVERY dog that shows up will be noticed. Sorry if that makes someone "profiled", its just a fact. I would expect getting defensive over being questioned does more harm than good, to both parties.

And id expect someone willing to find a lawyer and sue for emotional damages because they were questioned wrong , probably creates illwill against all people with service animals.

F&**! that. People don't go out in the woods looking to be harassed, especially if the harasser is not an LEO. Whenever anyone goes to the doctor's office, they hear about HIPPA law. The general public should have a good understanding of private medical information at this point, as well as common courtesy not to inquire about a person's disability. It's not the first thing a person wants to discuss with a stranger. Don't build a straw man argument at the end. People just don't want someone in their face asking about something that's not their business. I guess you think they should apologize for all the frauds too, like it's their fault.

There are two separate groups of people being discussed here. People having legitimate disabilities necessitating service dogs as one group and frauds on the other. I have no issue with penalizing heavily the low lifes masquerading as disabled, but it's wrong to violate the civil rights of people with disabilities because another group of people are ethically challenged.

[July]

i lIKEREALLY

[Alligator]

I think it reasonable that persons with service animals be required to show some sort of official certification of their need to law enforcement and other officials. We require handicapped plates be obtained before people park in handicapped parking spaces, why not the same level of requirements for service animals? I argue that it is the interest of the truly disabled to lobby for this to happen to weed out the frauds.

NC does something to that effect

§ 168-4.3. Training and registration of service animal.The Department of Health and Human Services, shall adopt rules for the registration of service animals and shall issue registrations to a person with a disability who makes application for registration of an animal that serves as a service animal or to a person who is training an animal as a service animal.
The rules adopted regarding registration shall require that the animal be trained or be in training as a service animal. The rules shall provide that the certification and registration need not be renewed while the animal is serving or training with the person applying for the registration. No fee may be charged the person for the application, registration, tag, or replacement in the event the original is lost. The Department of Health and Human Services may, by rule, issue a certification or accept the certification issued by the appropriate training facilities. (1985, c. 514, s. 1; 1987, c. 401, s. 2; 1997?443, s. 11A.118(a); 2004?203, s. 62(b); 2005?450, s. 1.)

[MuddyWaters]

I have no problem with someone that needs a service animal having it. I do have a problem with fakes pretending so they can take their pet with them.

Fortunately, as an individual i am free to ask all the questions i want. If someone doesnt like my questions they are free to leave my general vicinity.

Unfortunately, apparently the law has made it so it is very hard for businesses to differentiate without fear of retribution. That is not especially a good thing.

[Alligator]

I have no problem with someone that needs a service animal having it. I do have a problem with fakes pretending so they can take their pet with them.

Fortunately, as an individual i am free to ask all the questions i want. If someone doesnt like my questions they are free to leave my general vicinity.

Unfortunately, apparently the law has made it so it is very hard for businesses to differentiate without fear of retribution. That is not especially a good thing.

They are also free to tell you to go f*^&! yourself and get your nose out of their business. That would be the Mid-Atlantic States response.

[Alligator]

Here's what the Mainers have to say (I posted it out of order).

17-§1315. Proclamation
Each year, the Governor shall take suitable public notice of October 15th as White Cane Safety Day.
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statu...17sec1315.html
Maine Legislature Title 17: CRIMES
Chapter 47: DISCRIMINATION
§1315. Proclamation
Each year, the Governor shall take suitable public notice of October 15th as White Cane Safety Day. [1971, c. 58, § 1 (new).]
He shall issue a proclamation in which: [1971, c. 58, § 1 (new).]
1. Significance. He comments upon the significance of the white cane;[1971, c. 58, § 1 (new).]
2. Observance. He calls upon the citizens of the State to observe the provisions of the White Cane Law and to take precautions necessary to the safety of the disabled;[1971, c. 58, § 1 (new).]
3. Cooperation. He reminds the citizens of the State of the policies with respect to the disabled declared in sections 1311 to 1314 and urges the citizens to cooperate in giving effect to them;[1971, c. 58, § 1 (new).]
4. Assistance. He emphasizes the need of the citizens to be aware of the presence of disabled persons in the community, and to keep safe and functional for the disabled the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, public facilities, other public places, places of public accommodation, amusement and resort, and other places to which the public is invited, and to offer assistance to disabled persons upon appropriate occasions.[1971, c. 58, § 1 (new).]
Section History:
PL 1971, Ch. 58, §1 (NEW).

and

17-§1311. Policy
Excludes PSDs.
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statu...17sec1311.html
Title 17: CRIMES
Chapter 47: DISCRIMINATION
§1311. Policy
It is the policy of this State to encourage and enable the blind, the visually handicapped and the otherwise physically disabled to participate fully in the social and economic life of the State and to engage in remunerative employment. [1971, c. 58, § 1 (new).]
Section History:
PL 1971, Ch. 58, §1 (NEW.
17-§1312 Rights.
Covers only SDs trained for blindness or mobility. Trainers must be "especially trained".
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statu...17sec1312.html
§1312. Rights
1. Streets and public places. The blind, the visually handicapped and the otherwise physically disabled have the same right as the able-bodied to the full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, public facilities and other public places.[1971, c. 58, § 1 (new).]
2. Public conveyances. The blind, the visually handicapped and the otherwise physically disabled are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of all common carriers, airplanes, motor vehicles, railroad trains, motor buses, street cars, boats or any other public conveyances or modes of transportation, hotels, lodging places, places of public accommodation, amusement or resort, and other places to which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to all persons.[1971, c. 58, § 1 (new).]
3. Guide and personal care dogs. Every totally or partially blind or otherwise physically disabled person has the right to be accompanied by a guide or personal care dog, especially trained for the purpose, in any of the places listed in subsection 2 without being required to pay an extra charge for the guide or personal care dog; however, the person is liable for any damage done to the premises or facilities by such dog.[1997, c. 611, §1 (amd).]
17-§1313. Motor vehicle drivers
white cane law.
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statu...17sec1313.html
Title 17: CRIMES
Chapter 47: DISCRIMINATION
§1313. Motor vehicle drivers
The driver of a vehicle approaching a totally or partially blind or otherwise physically disabled pedestrian who is carrying a cane predominantly white or metallic in color, with or without a red tip, or using a guide or personal care dog as defined in section 1312 shall take all necessary precautions to avoid injury to that blind or otherwise physically disabled pedestrian, and any driver who fails to take such precautions is liable in damages for any injury caused the pedestrian. A totally or partially blind or otherwise physically disabled pedestrian, not carrying such a cane or using a guide or personal care dog in any of the places, accommodations or conveyances listed in section 1312, has all of the rights and privileges conferred by law upon other persons, and the failure of a totally or partially blind or otherwise physically disabled pedestrian to carry such a cane or to use a guide or personal care dog in any such places, accommodations or conveyances may not be held to constitute nor be evidence of contributory negligence. [1997, c. 611, §5 (amd).]
17-§1314 Penalty (CONTAINS TEXT WITH VARYING EFFECTIVE DATES)
interference is a misdemeanor. Fake guide dog is $100 fine.
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statu...17sec1314.html
17-§1314-A. Misrepresentation of guide dog (CONTAINS TEXT WITH VARYING EFFECTIVE DATES)
$100 fine for faking a guide dog.
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statu...sec1314-A.html
Title 17: CRIMES
Chapter 47: DISCRIMINATION
§1314. Penalties
1. Public facilities; other rights. A person, firm or corporation or the agent of a person, firm or corporation may not:
A. Deny or interfere with admittance to or enjoyment of the public facilities described in section 1312; or [2003, c. 452, Pt. I, §27 (new); Pt. X, §2 (aff).]
B. Otherwise interfere with the rights of a person who is totally or partially blind or a person with other disabilities under section 1312. [2003, c. 452, Pt. I, §27 (new); Pt. X, §2 (aff).]
[2003, c. 452, Pt. I, §27 (new); Pt. X, §2 (aff).]
2. Penalty. Violation of this section is a Class E crime. Violation of this section is a strict liability crime as defined in Title 17-A, section 34, subsection 4-A.[2003, c. 452, Pt. I, §27 (new); Pt. X, §2 (aff).]

found with additional legislation at http://servicedogcentral.org/content/node/19

[MuddyWaters]

They are also free to tell you to go f*^&! yourself and get your nose out of their business. That would be the Mid-Atlantic States response.

A response like that would only ensure that it was time for them to leave.

[TNhiker]

And that's kinda the response that the guy at Baxter gave after being outted with a non service dog.....

(see my previous post)

and the guy knew he was wrong----got down mountain as fast as he could, hid dog in car and lied to rangers about it.....

[Alligator]

And that's kinda the response that the guy at Baxter gave after being outted with a non service dog.....

(see my previous post)

and the guy knew he was wrong----got down mountain as fast as he could, hid dog in car and lied to rangers about it.....

Kinda sorta, but there's a big difference between the two. (Nice try though.) One is directed to The Man and other is directed to the man in front of you. No one is going to leave when it is said like I wrote, regardless of Muddywaters musings. Besides the legality of the service dog, there's also common courtesy. If you are not law enforcement, or associated with trail management, it's not cool to be violating someone's civil rights. It's not cool when the police do it for that matter. It's also whacked to think it's ok to be that intrusive because the person could just leave. They have a right to their personal space right where they are.

[squeezebox]

But the dog does not have a right to it's space if it's not a genuine service dog. We don't have to put up with illegal activity for the sake of some jerk's personal space. One of our society's major problems now. So my space doesn't count only the jerk's space?
If the jerk is intruding on my space I have a right to stick my nose in his business, isn't that what he is doing to me?

[Traveler]

Much as you can't tell which kid is going to spray paint rocks at a view until you see the paint can, the same is true for people who are trying to get one over on Rangers with fake service animal credentials until they give themselves away. Both are rule breaking and actionable by LEO's in areas where graffiti or pets are not allowed. Its up to us to turn them in or not. I am all for it, given the problems we have with taggers, open fires in no-fire areas, and other juvenile behavior.

Asking people about their service animals is not all that necessary and can lead to unwanted confrontations. Just observing these people and their service dogs should be enough to tell you if they are legitimate. If the dog wanders all over hell and back, noses into others food and is a general nuisance, likely its not legitimate. If you watch how the animal takes commands and follows them, that will tell the story. Service dogs are typically well trained both for the help they provide and because they will be around people or in different environments that will challenge its instinctive reactions (protection, barking, etc). If someone has to repeatedly tell a service dog to sit, stay, or keep quiet, its likely not.

[vamelungeon]

Simple solution, have a national registry for service dog users that issues some sort of license or ID for the owner that says "This person requires a service animal's help." Easy peasy. This would eliminate the problems at parks, restaurants and frauds abusing the system.

[squeezebox]

Just follow the rules and everybody's okay.

[Grampie]

Just follow the rules and everybody's okay.

that's the problem..Too many don't follow the rules. They think the rules were made for someone else and not them.

[HooKooDooKu]

Simple solution, have a national registry for service dog users that issues some sort of license or ID for the owner that says "This person requires a service animal's help." Easy peasy. This would eliminate the problems at parks, restaurants and frauds abusing the system.

That literally would take an act of Congress... which by definition isn't "simple".