"But, Conductor sir, my 160-pound Neapolitan mastiff IS an emotional support animal. He keeps the smelly riffraff away when I ride in coach. Makes me feel safer."
See here. Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Kisor, the little 'lap-yap' pictured in The Times article, is, "uh, not exactly" a Neopolitan Mastiff.
I have known some Mastiff's to be very friendly; really not all that many little 'rat dogs'.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
I suspect Henry was not referring to the Times' picture when he referred to a Mastiff.
The mind boggles. I've never heard of this before but it would appear the UK does have such a service, albeit somewhat struggling rather than as a flourishing market for the latest in designer "needs".
As for airport staff not being allowed to verify such status is completely bonkers and wide open to abuse - which appears to be rampant if that article is to be believed.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
American disability law prohibits asking an animal owner to prove his or her disability. People with disabilities should not be put on such a humiliating spot. They do NOT have to show their Letter from the Doctor, either. (But a voluntary proffer of the certificate can often smooth the way.)
Legally, all the transportation personnel can do is ask what service the service animal performs, and, if the animal does not behave properly, they can remove the animal from the premises.
People can and do take unfair advantage of that enormous loophole. That's life.
(Indeed mastiffs can be very friendly animals when they are not trained to be watchdogs. The danger, besides their copious drool, is that they are often clumsy and can inadvertently knock you down just saying hello.)
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
I know that's what the law says but it actually creates a worse situation for the genuinely needy. Because it is wide open to abuse, and most people know that, the genuine (and non-genuine) are regarded with distinct mistrust because there is no legal way of knowing if they are genuine.
Look at it from a blue badge point of view. Somebody in authority has issued the recipient with such based on some sort of evidence provided to that authority. Most people with blue badges are perfectly happy to display those on their license plate, and those that aren't still have to display a badge inside the car when using blue badge privileges. The blue badge does not indicate in any way why the badge is required.
So why the two extremes? Why not let the mutt owner carry around a card indicating that the dog is a service animal, to show on demand by those in authority? There is absolutely no need to list why the dog is needed, just that one has been authorized by an authority, be it seeing-eye, hearing, this "emotional support" idea, or anything else dog-worthy. Again, I accept that that is the law currently but laws do evolve, preferably improving on the previous. History is full of laws being rewritten when it's discovered that - for want of a better word - unintentional loopholes exist.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
There is also the problem of striving for perfection driving out the good. This happens far to frequently in writing laws, and even more so in court decisions.
When we start trying to stop all the abusers of the "service animal" use, where do we stop?
Some are truly obvious like the seeing eye dog. Others not at all like the dog that can sense the impending onset of a seizure. Most people in the latter case would rather not explain at all.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
One problem with service animal certification is that there is no one legally recognized body that issues it. One could go to a printer and have a card made up saying that Stanley the Mastiff is a Trained Hearing-Ear Dog and has legal access to restaurant meat lockers, and nothing could gainsay that.
In practice, however, I have seen far more obviously genuine service animals than fakes. Maybe this is true for others, too.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: One problem with service animal certification is that there is no one legally recognized body that issues it.
Aha, that could be a problem then.
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: One could go to a printer and have a card made up saying that Stanley the Mastiff is a Trained Hearing-Ear Dog and has legal access to restaurant meat lockers, and nothing could gainsay that.
Obviously there'd have to be some safeguards to deter the casual fraudster like holograms, raised ink, or whatever.
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: In practice, however, I have seen far more obviously genuine service animals than fakes. Maybe this is true for others, too.
Isn't that the point though - it's difficult to tell! That article you linked to earlier mentioned a "diagnosis by Skype" (for a fee, of course). If that's not advertising misuse then I don't know what is!
I was registered as partially sighted in the UK to get help at school. More recently my sight got even worse when I became one of the 3% for whom "routine" cataract operations go badly wrong through no fault of the surgeon, and for 9 months I was legally blind (which is more about ability to read a chart than actually not being able to see anything) until the condition subsided and I had another op. I was able to see and function, even going to work once a week despite being signed off. Yet every time I went for a check-up there would be hordes of pitiful whiners demanding this that and everything else because they had a single floater in their eye. And the waiting room in Kaiser Permanente Fontana, CA is no different from the UK in that respect!
This is why I feel strongly that those who need it should get all the help they need, and those that don't need it should be prevented from pretending they need it.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geoff Mayo:
This is why I feel strongly that those who need it should get all the help they need, and those that don't need it should be prevented from pretending they need it.
That is the bottom line isn't it. I would think the government is in a perfect position to do this, between Obamacare, Medicaid, and Medicare. I won't comment on how effective they might be.
Now, for anyone who has high blood pressure or is generally stressed out, I recommend a Basset Hound. No medication needed.