My Service Dog, Jade

Saturday, February 25, 2012

BSL and Service Dogs

I have a really bad feeling that any city, county, state or country that has enacted, or will enact BSL  (Breed Specific Legislation) in the future, will start seeing a huge increase in "service dogs," and they're gonna be pit bulls! Besides being morally corrupt, and completely disgraceful, it's also against the law and a HUGE federal violation to impersonate a disabled person for the purpose of having a service dog; nevertheless, I think I can speak for many, many people in saying that there are A LOT of people in this country, and others, that fit this description.  Many more cities, and counties are learning more and more about pit bulls.  Not to mention the fact that they continue to maul, maim and kill more people and other animals than all other dog breeds combined.  Legislators are learning, and the people are getting tired of it.   More and more places are starting to discuss and enact BSL, which is leading those morally corrupt and disgraceful people to look for new ways to get around the law.  Yup, the perfect way to keep your pit bull, is to impersonate a disabled person and try to get your dog certified as a "service dog." C'mon pit bull owners, we know what you're doing. We may be disabled, but we're NOT stupid!!!  Be advised, you morally corrupt and disgraceful people, the ADA and the Federal Government are also not stupid and are well aware of it....and there will SOON come a time when you all will be outed.  There will soon be a Federal Law enacted that will prohibit you from doing what you're doing! As it stands, the ADA is there for the purpose of protecting the disabled, and you, who try to FAKE your dog's certification as a "service dog" will soon pay the price.  Make no mistake!

Here's a quote I found online in regards to this topic. Frightening, isn't it?!

"As far as I'm concerned, this is a loophole! I'm planning on having all the BSL breeds in our rescue CGC and TDI certified. By federal law, no one is allowed to ask you for proof that the dog you have it a therapy dog. If they do you can sue them under ADA law. And all you need is a doctor willing to say you get stressed in public and need your dog to help you relax. That makes your dog a therapy dog. Done.


And now according to federal law, no city or state is allowed to ban your dog, regardless of breed, if it's a therapy dog!!   Take that you brainless BSL supporting morons!!"


I won't go into why this person is a complete idiot, and totally ignorant of the law....we'll keep that between us.  If you know the law, you know why this will NOT work for this person.  She eventually decides to actually read the ADA regs and figures out why this won't work, but rest assured, there are many morally corrupt, disgraceful scumbags out there impersonating the disabled for this very reason. Watch out for them, and when you see them, REPORT THEM!!!

9 comments:

  1. Great Blog! glad to see it. I've been getting frustrated with the pitbull community labeling their dogs as service or therapy dogs which is a disservice to those in the disability community.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There really are Pit Bulls out there that are service dogs though. A few years ago in Denver they took away this guy's service dog who was a Pit Bull, and when the federal government stepped in and said they couldn't do that and that it was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, they just declared home rule and said they weren't going to listen. Finally he did get his dog back, but it was tied up in litigation and he was without his dog for several months. The guy was a Vietnam vet too. Way to go, Denver.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon 8:19

      Who are you talking about? If it's the guy who owned Snickers the pit bull then you have to ask yourself why would you purchase a breed of dog you know is banned where you live when there are other breeds of dogs readily available? That's irresponsible welfare toward the dog if you ask me, because he should know that his dog could have been put on dearth row.

      I hate to judge on limited evidence, but this guy sounds like someone who wanted to get around the previous Ban via the service dog loophole.

      Delete
    2. Okay, I found the article and got the facts for you, here ya go: http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/03/pit_bull_ban_disabled_vietnam.php

      I recommend reading the whole thing, but I'll paraphrase and answer your questions. Forgive my previous comment for being slightly inaccurate as it had been awhile since I'd first read about the situation.

      This happened to two different people. One Vietnam veteran and one Gulf War veteran. The Vietnam vet's dog was not a Pit Bull at all. It was known to be a Boxer-Labrador mix. I repeat, NOT A PIT BULL AT ALL. Taking his dog away was unnecessary harassment and made as much sense under the law as it would to take away a Golden Retriever.

      The other guy, the Gulf War veteran, had his dog BEFORE he moved to Denver. He wasn't trying to lie or get through any loopholes, he was just a man and his service dog. I don't care what the law says, it's completely unethical, not to mention illegal, to deny him his rights. City governments can make all kinds of crazy rules they want, but when they start taking away a person's rights under federal law just because they want to, we have a major problem.

      Delete
    3. anon 2:11

      Before I even read the report I already feel as though it's going to play more to emotional appeal and propaganda via the image of the placid looking pit bull with the quote, "Why is every body always picking on me?."

      Still, I gave this a read and here are my problems with it.

      1. The two veterans seem to have moved to Denver with pit bulls knowing the ban. Again this seems like the guy was trying to stir up trouble.

      2. I don't trust this article with the boxer/lab claim because I don't see an image of either dog that were claimed to be pit bulls or mixes of other breeds. I looked up dogs that were claimed to have been boxer lab mixes and they actually look like boxer lab mixes. Here's examples one, two, three, and four.

      Not only that, but boxers and labs have very distinct features that would be quite present in most crosses. Boxers on average weigh 50-70lb depending on gender. Labradors also weigh around the same weight. On the other hand most pit bulls, depending on physical type weight 25-30 (game APBT), 30-50, or 50-70lb (Bullies).

      3. Well, scratch some of part two, I did some research and this is what I came up with . A smaller dog that has the build neither of a lab or boxer or its mix. A dog that has a flyaway ears more common to a pit type dog. Overall, a dog that looks more pit bull than boxer.

      The thing is, many pit bull owner are notorious for lying about their dog's breed when it does something negative, or when it means t hat something negative will come their way because of it. Instead of accepting that their pit bulls aren;t allowed in certain areas or everywhere, they would much rather try and cheat the system more often than not when there are other dogs that are perfectly suited or the type of work they were bred for. Pit bulls weren't bred for servicing people with a strict adherence to commands, and because of that they can be very difficult to train and much more of a liability. Collies, Labradors, and other herding and Shepard type dogs were. So it still begs the question why would this veteran choose a pit bull or a pit type dog for his stress when there are other dogs in Denver that generally do the job better and are legal.

      "Glenn Belcher, a Gulf War veteran who moved to Denver with his pit bull last year, and Valerie Piltz, a disabled woman staying with her sister in Denver, are also plaintiffs in the suit; both of them actually own pit bulls as service animals."

      Again, all I see here are pit bull owners trying to loophole the system.

      Delete
  3. I know someone who has a "service dog" for stress. It is a mini-pin but she could have chosen any type of dog she wanted to, as long as she told the doctor it made her feel less stressed. This could have been a pit or anything else. There was an incident at her local walmart because they did not believe her that it was a service dog. She called the market mgr. (like a district mgr.) and they said all the door greeter can do is ask if your dog is a service dog. If you say yes, they are supposed to take the customer's word for it and let them in without checking. Now imagine if someone chooses a pit to relieve stress - they can walk around walmarts with it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. James, you are right. There are people out there who are claiming that their pit bulls are "service dogs" when they're not. You're also right in saying that no one can really ask a lot of questions, per federal law. A handler can legally be asked a few questions when with their service dog. Those questions are; Are you disabled? Is your dog a service dog? And What tasks does your dog perform to assist you with your disability? So, no, it's not a free-for-all, but yes, there are those disgraceful scumbags out there that attempt to impersonate disabled people in order to get around BSL, or just to be able to take their dogs with them wherever they go. However, the ADA regs have changed. ESAs (Emotional support animals), which is what your "person's" mini-pin is, does NOT have the same public access rights as a service dog. That mini-pin is NOT a service dog, just because it helps that person feel less stressed. A service dog has to perform specific tasks that are directly related to a person's disability. For example, I have a severe mobility disability and my dog assists me by picking things up that I drop, bracing me for support to get up or sit down. She can open doors, close doors, she helps me get the laundry in and out of the dryer. I hope I have explained the difference between ESAs and service dogs for you. You can read up on this in my "useful links" about ADA regulations. Hope that helps. Thanks for taking the time to read through and comment and my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jewel Jade: you're 66.67% correct. You may NEVER ask a person if they are disabled! CFR Title 28 parts 35 and 36 say you may only ask 2 questions: is the [animal] required because of a disability, and for what work or task has the animal been trained to perform?

    According to federal law, a "service animal" is a dog, and nothing else. HOWEVER, the law also recognizes/protects miniature horses for use by the disabled - they just don't get the title "service animal" and there is a little wiggle-room for not allowing a miniature horse into an establishment, based on size, weight, type and general safety.

    Here's the law and explanations (the 1st 2 links will take you to "Inquiries" for parts 35 and 36. Search within both documents for "miniature horse" for info on horses):
    http://tinyurl.com/cfr-sdogInqII
    http://tinyurl.com/cfr-sdogInqIII

    2011 updates to the ADA, which includes sections on both service animals (dogs) and horses:
    http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

    If it's not a service animal or horse, then a support animal MAY be covered under the Fair Housing Act as far as housing, but NOT protected otherwise (e.g. restaurants, work places, etc). But, you'll have to have a doctor or other medical professional state the "other" animal is required.

    There are exactly zero "certifications" for service animals or miniature horses recognized by the federal government. Therefore, you may never ask for such non-recognized certification or documentation.

    Federal law trumps state and local laws thanks to Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution.

    The "What is a Service Dog" at the bottom of this blog is incorrect. Strike "or other animal" and then it's correct, according to ADA (see link above for the 2011 updated ADA).

    ReplyDelete
  6. The person I know is an exgirlfriend, she is a little off. She told me that it was a plain old 'service dog'; I did not know there was an 'ESA' category. I am sure you are right. I also agree that people are using both of these to try and skirt pit bans.

    ReplyDelete