Service dogs, how to get your dog 'officially' certified.

Post Reply New Topic

Looks like your law is comperable to the US one. Disabled Handler + Dog Trained to Assist Handler in Any Way = Service dog.

sorry EK, where are you quoting that from? if it's the UN agreement that's not Australian law and i'm not sure it's enforceable. We are not governed by the UN, if you take my meaning. If it's the current disability disc act can you just give me the number of the point where you found it.

The page you linked to, following the link to section 9. It being Australian law I suppose I could be wrong, but if it were a US law it'd mean that; otherwise it would reference another subsection defining guide dogs (duly certified under subsection zaltz-twenty-three or whatever) instead of the simple definition that it gives.

oh ok thanks for that, it's Saturday afternoon here and i think my brain has turned itself off, I just couldn't find it in the document. so....this is IT!


-----------

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 9
Disability discrimination—guide dogs, hearing assistance dogs and trained animals

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person ( discriminator ) discriminates against a person with:

(a) a visual disability; or

(b) a hearing disability; or

(c) any other disability;

( aggrieved person ) if the discriminator treats the aggrieved person less favourably because of the fact that the aggrieved person possesses, or is accompanied by:

(d) a guide dog; or

(e) a dog trained to assist the aggrieved person in activities where hearing is required, or because of any matter related to that fact; or

(f) any other animal trained to assist the aggrieved person to alleviate the effect of the disability, or because of any matter related to that fact;

whether or not it is the discriminator’s practice to treat less favourably any person who possesses, or is accompanied by, a dog or any other animal.

(2) Subsection (1) does not affect the liability of a person with a disability for damage to property caused by a dog or other animal trained to assist the person to alleviate the effect of the disability or because of any matter related to that fact.


-----------

seems reasonably liberal to me, according to this bit "(f) any other animal trained to assist the aggrieved person to alleviate the effect of the disability, or because of any matter related to that fact" I take it that means I should be able to just write 'service dog' on my council form!

Actually going to have her dog fly with her doesn't fall under the ADA. It's a different law (ACAA) not the ADA. There are additional benefits that is added in flying. Also I was just told that many air plane companies had pet policies for small pets to fly in the cabin if in a carrying crate. So if her dog is a small dog this wouldn't been an issue except for paying.

Why doesn't your friend teach her dog some alert tasks as long as the dog isn't stressed out by the normal things in businesses and airports that is. She could teach the dog to nudge her knee if a person calls her name. Or step on the foot or find the nearest exit when an alarm sounds off. These would be real tasks training and she would be qualified to take her *individually trained* service dog everywhere with her. And she didn't have to pay xxxx amount to have certification papers that doesn't mean a thing.

Certification is great in theory however it is not an reality. Reasoning is that this is extremely complex. There is not enough individuals that could be trained to do this task because not only the factour of many different types of disabilities but the various degrees within the same type of disabilities. This would cause a majour meltdown in the system.

Then whom would be qualified to certify service animals? A school! A trainer! Government! What gives them qualifications? I trained service dogs over 25 years and I am not qualified to certify all types of service animals nor would I. I have no idea about certain types of methods or training for medical alert / respond dogs. So what would make them more qualified.

Second this would also take away the private service dog trainers, as well as self trainers. It would limited more people with disabilities from having a service dog or animal for that matter.

And how would it stop a person from purchasing a certification papers anyway? It hasn't stop her friend from getting one. It doesn't stop people now from doing things illegally. The problem of it all is that certification papers only claims that the said animal graduated task training. It doesn't state that in the future the animal will be of sound mind. Or that the handler is actually a person with a disability or is under control with their service animal. (eg a blind individual allowing their guide to beg at tables and run loose; a spouse took a service dog into a store but this person wasn't disabled just had papers showing the dog is trained to be a service dog). See the abuse!

I even had a programme certification dog attack my dog at a store. This was due to health issues that wasn't recognized no fault to the handler. However this person had certification that states it was trained but it didn't stop having health issues and should have actually been retired. Again though on defense of that handler the dog didn't show any type of change in character until he decided (his tumor) to become aggressive.

Just trying to show why certification papers wouldn't mean a thing except that businesses would think that they cannot do a thing. As well as get into people with disabilities face and another discrimination. I have been told over and over again from businesses that they cannot do a thing because a person has certification papers. Just would muddy up the waters even more.

Not to mention that many people think our service animals have legal rights. It's is false! It's not our service animals having legal rights its people with disabilities having legal civil rights to be accompanied by an individually trained service animal. That is one of the reasons our forefathers have stated it to be illegal for businesses to demand ID or certification papers because our animals have no legal rights. They foreseen the bigger problem of none disabled individuals going into stores with SD's or pets. But again wouldn't stop a person from illegally getting or making up these papers.

Right now people could purchase such papers. These companies didn't trained the dogs nor even seen the dogs. But they scam the individuals out of their money none the less. Again great in theory but not in reality. Leaving out the majourity of people with disabilities.

I saw the definition only late last night too. From the definitions and the Section 9 I would say you are covered. It took me a while to figure out some of the lingo. But it seems similar to how the ADA works. Not to mention it's not all in one section of one law. There's several laws that makes up this.

Our dog also does seizure alert.

I dont think that it is wrong for people to train their own dogs. I just do not like how some people train own dogs and they are not really service dogs. I have seen dogs in the public who were very untrained and even sow one that snapped at a person. For the SAR dogs you are talking about they may be in training and need to be exposed to the public.

Well I just do not like the people who take advantage of the system and bring untrained dogs into public places. Like I said in my previous post I have seen a dog at Disneyland that snapped at a person. If this situation happens more in the future and more people bring dogs that are untrained into the public it will give dogs with proper training a bad name.

Actually, her dog is a large breed, so he is certainly not small enough to fly in the cabin simply as a small dog. In fact, I think the size crate he needs exceeds what most airlines will allow in the cargo hold of the plane, so....

Postperson,

MOST places seem to follow the US method. It is THIS....

1. Precedent! Has a similar case been judged in YOUR favor!?!? If so, YOU ARE SAFE!
2. CODE! Has it been CODIFIED in an obvious way? If so, YOU ARE SAFE! Sadly, a lawyer may say NO here!
3. LAW! Is it ALUDED to under the code? 1cf DOES alude to it. You MIGHT be safe. You MIGHT have a case. It goes to #4.
4. LAWYER! If you feel you have ANY case, ESPECIALLY if you meet the other 3, shown above, then the lawyer can fight for you. If they win, and #1 is not ALREADY in your favor, they will create a NEW precedent! Of course, a lawyer can fight on several levels. The highest level is the highest level it is guaranteed to apply to. In the US, for example, it may be district, state, federal(country). Higher courts may consider precedents from lower ones, and lower ones DEFINITELY consider precedents from higher ones.

Likewise, of course, organizations can allow what is not specifically forbidden, but are forbidden to forbid what is specifically allowed.

Basically, 1c allows you a backdoor. It isn't specific enough, but CAN apply to your dog if you have a recognized and diagnosed disability.



It seems to me that if you can simply argue that the dog is your friend and makes you feel better and better able to get along, that that means YOU HAVE A CASE!

yeah, i have used legal aid here lately because of a boundary dispute and they're excellent so if i get any objection from the council, I'll give them a call. Thanks for all your helps folks.

A service dog snapped at somebody? I've never seen that happen, though certainly the law fails to do anything to try to prevent it. That sucks, and yeah, it's going to give service dogs a bad name if it happens much. I'd snap at somebody at Disneyland, too, but I'm badly socialized.

I still think requiring a service-dog to be 'certified' somehow is a bad idea, for the reasons PwD-SD stated (except that no 'forefathers' were involved.) The chances of such a thing being used to harrass and annoy disabled people is much greater than the chance that it will prevent problems with dogs in public.

You can already buy official-looking service-dog 'certification' papers that hold no legal weight but presumably look like they do, as a means of avoiding personal harrassment while giving people the wrong impression of the law and screwing over the next disabled person who comes along with a service dog that doesn't have fake papers.

Really, what bugs me about it is that it's unfair to non-disabled people. Any disabled person who feels like it can say their pet is a service animal and enjoy all kinds of fun. I think local governments should issue special tags to any dog that can pass a different certification, a simple equivalent to a temperment-test and Canine Good Citizen Test, and give those dogs priveleges -- off-leash in certain parks, local businesses can get window-stickers saying those dogs are welcome, those dogs get to ride public transport. Thus making it so that you don't have to be disabled to have a dog in public, and people are encouraged to train their dogs in good public manners.

Yeah, the SAR dogs are always in training and must constantly practice being tolerant of strangers and activity. But they are still not technically allowed in the grocery store, and are just slipping by because their vests make them look like service dogs. They do get a SAR certification, but they start taking them these places before that. It's the same deal with the Canine Companions for Independance puppies, the families who raise, socialize, and do the basic obedience training for those dogs before the puppies enter the big-time training program are always putting the CCI vests on them and taking them all over, though there's no law saying they can, and they are actually in violation of laws saying you can't have dogs in restaurants and food-shops. They get away with it even though the puppies aren't a bit trained, because the community in general just happens to love and support CCI.

Actually Justin Dart Jr. was widely recognized as the Father of the Americans with Disabilities Act to many of us. As he was one of the main forces behind the ADA. A forefather of the disability rights movement as to so many others before him when it comes to civil rights movement. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan appointed Dart to be the vice-chair of what is now known as the National Council on Disability. Mr. Dart and others on the Council drafted a national policy that called for national civil rights legislation to end discrimination against people with disabilities. This document would eventually form the basis for the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. He was right there in his wheelchair beside President H.W. Bush as he signed the ADA into law. So when I talk about our forefathers I talk about Justin Dart Jr. If it wasn't for his leadership we wouldn't be where we are today. Though we continue his fight.




Interesting concept except that would be in direct violation of the federal law. As it would be stricter or in conflict of the ADA, which the ADA prevails over any such laws if you are talking about service dogs only. If you are saying all companion dogs again the papers would only claim that they had a good temperament at the time of the test.

What would happen if a place of business as some do allow workers to bring their pets to work. Then the owner has a dog in which he or she lets run loose in the store. This has happen to several people already and the owners dog was territorial of the store if another animal comes in or they run wanting to play. Even if they passed a test it still wouldn't stop irresponsible people. Just add to the problem.

Father, yes. Forefather implies a degree of more remote ancestry that isn't applicable. I'm just being picky.



No, it wouldn't, because it's not about service dogs, but about companion dogs. Local ordinances giving special tags and certain priveleges to companion dogs proven to be well behaved wouldn't have anything to do with the ADA.



Well, yes. But dogs aren't shockingly unstable. You can reasonably expect a dog who passes on those good-temper and basic obedience skills to retain them, given that he gets to go out and practice. Obviously a dog who had the certificate but garnered complaints in public for snapping/growling/biting/bouncing on people or fighting with other dogs would lose its cert.



Then that dog isn't a good dog to come to work in a store. Some are and some aren't. Most could learn to accept strange dogs entering the store if they got some experience with that situation. I'm not talking about a law like the ADA, which says that shopkeepers and business owners must allow a dog in their store, but one that recognizes dogs that are an excellent bet for being able to handle it and encourages business owners to welcome them, thus encouraging owners to work on getting the dog to be a good bet.

'Dog Parks' (off leash areas for dogs to play, in public parks) are a big success in the US. I don't often hear about people having problems with dogs in the few stores that do allow them (PetSmart chain, Home Depot) either.



The idea isn't to stop irresponsible people. That is not possible. The idea is to encourage responsible people. People don't work with their dogs to get great public manners if there's nowhere they're allowed to take the dog anyway. If a well-behaved dog is a welcome dog more places, then people will get into it and more housepets will learn to be real companions. And it would most likely reduce certain problems -- like the deal in Boulder where dogs can ride the city buses. If only puppies and excellent-public-manners certified dogs can ride, then the chances of doggy-mayhem on the bus would be reduced. Though never eliminated.

Interesting comments on service dogs, though I guess my only concerns would be people with allergies, settings where a dog might seem unsanitary (like a restaurant), etc. I'm definitely all for making our society more pet-friendly, but I also see a few legitimate problems. Service animals for disabled people are not just like other dogs, and should be permitted special privileges. When considering disability law, it's important to remember that equality often doesn't mean being treated exactly the same. Yes, fraud is possible, but I don't want disabled people to be denied their rights just because some non-disabled people may abuse the system.

The New York Times Magazine had an interesting article about noncanine service animals and raises some of the various issues on this thread. I personally come down on the side that it is discriminatory to exclude a service animal because the disability or the type of service animal is not well-understood.

I'm not planning to start the paperwork to get my cat qualified as a service animal just yet, but I do have a few scruples about potentially abusing the system. OTOH, my partner and I are both disabled by autism and autism-related issues, and Allie (our cat) really helps us to manage our issues and provide us with social contact. I've always socialized better with cats than with people. So, it's complicated, and if I were to try and get Allie registered as a service animal it would only be so we wouldn't have to give him up to live in a particular apartment complex. He's small enough to fly coach, anyway, so I don't see why that would be an issue.