[GeoGeo]

We were at a doctor's office and someone had their large service dog with a service dog vest on and it barked and barked and barked some more.

[Veiragirl]

Originally Posted by me4vt

But it’s ok for people to bring their rug rats kicking and screaming to restaurants!

I would rather sit by a well behaved dog then the entitled,spoiled,screaming kid. Also NO ONE under 21 should be allowed in restaurants when alcohol is served. That's what we have McDonalds for

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

Sorry, but NOT self-serving at all! You are exaggerating. There are some (not many) people who are negatively affected by exposure to dogs as a result of illness. What kind of illness would that be? If it's an allergy, the person doesn't have to pet the dog or be in its company; they can walk away. They can also be medicated. Fear or distrust? Same thing as allergy and see a psychiatrist.

I once did a personal study for my own satisfaction and found a great correlation between people who said they were allergic to dogs and cats (truthfully, mostly cats) to those who did not like dogs and cats. I found the results to be interesting and amazing.

Yes, owning a dog is an emotional thing and gives great comfort and satisfaction to those who own the dog and to those with whom the dog is in direct contact.

Not exaggerating. As a former dog owner who still loves dogs but now lives with one negatively affected by dogs, it is my opinion that those individuals deserve the right to not be forced to accept exposure to dogs except in the case of TRUE service dogs (ie:seeing eye dogs). Service dogs owners should be required to be questioned and carry proof of type of service.
As to your study, it should make perfect sense that one would not like the thing(s) that they fear or that make them ill. I find your results not "interesting and amazing", but exactly what one would/should expect. And your comment to just walk away. That is often impractical or just not possible.
I agree that owning a dog is an emotional thing. We love our pets, but not everyone else does. Nor should we expect them to or demand they do.
Emotional support animals serve the same purpose as a teddy bear. Something to focus on and hold to transfer your distress to Think of the poor dog, for God's sake. It senses your distress, has no idea what is so wrong. Now you have made the poor dog miserable. Shame on you. Take a "happy" pill, grab your teddy bear and let the poor dog alone for its mental health.

[CFrance]

Posters can argue/debate ad nauseum, but the arguments would be better placed to congressmen to make changes. The ADA law vis-a-vis service dogs is too weak and leaves too much opening for fraud. I personally see nothing wrong with some sort of agency certifying service dogs, issuing a tag, and requiring their owners to carry papers. I realize that also would be open to counterfeit, but I think it would weed out most of the cheaters. I also see nothing wrong with a merchant asking to see proof of certification.

Legitimate service dogs perform more than just seeing-eye tasks. They open doors, detect seizures, alert their owners to certain dangers such as the onset of diabetic coma--the list goes on. Some can push a button on a phone or other alert device. It would be impossible to demonstrate some of these tasks to anyone in a store or restaurant who asks.

The tags could be made to be read with the same equipment stores use to check for counterfeit money. The training agencies could cover the costs of the tags and certification for those unable to pay at the time they equip the disabled person with a dog. Grants and donations help.

It's time the ADA people cleaned up this particular law, in my opinion.

It's also time people stopped gaming the system. It's giving the rest of us responsible dog owners a bad name. We know where and where not to take our dogs, and why.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by CFrance

Posters can argue/debate ad nauseum, but the arguments would be better placed to congressmen to make changes. The ADA law vis-a-vis service dogs is too weak and leaves too much opening for fraud. I personally see nothing wrong with some sort of agency certifying service dogs, issuing a tag, and requiring their owners to carry papers. I realize that also would be open to counterfeit, but I think it would weed out most of the cheaters. I also see nothing wrong with a merchant asking to see proof of certification.

Legitimate service dogs perform more than just seeing-eye tasks. They open doors, detect seizures, alert their owners to certain dangers such as the onset of diabetic coma--the list goes on. Some can push a button on a phone or other alert device. It would be impossible to demonstrate some of these tasks to anyone in a store or restaurant who asks.

The tags could be made to be read with the same equipment stores use to check for counterfeit money. The training agencies could cover the costs of the tags and certification for those unable to pay at the time they equip the disabled person with a dog. Grants and donations help.

It's time the ADA people cleaned up this particular law, in my opinion.

It's also time people stopped gaming the system. It's giving the rest of us responsible dog owners a bad name. We know where and where not to take our dogs, and why.

I agree with you. Guide dogs for the blind are pretty obvious that they are performing a function. But, there are many animals that perform functions for those whose disability is not so obvious. This is the area the cheaters (scammers) exploit. This is why I believe that any establishment open to the public should be able to ask the owner of a service animal to provide proof (license) they (the animal) is legit. There should be penalties for those who try to scam the system.
Truly responsible pet owners sadly often get unfairly lumped in with the "bad guys", and they don't deserve that.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Not exaggerating. As a former dog owner who still loves dogs but now lives with one negatively affected by dogs, it is my opinion that those individuals deserve the right to not be forced to accept exposure to dogs except in the case of TRUE service dogs (ie:seeing eye dogs). Service dogs owners should be required to be questioned and carry proof of type of service.
As to your study, it should make perfect sense that one would not like the thing(s) that they fear or that make them ill. I find your results not "interesting and amazing", but exactly what one would/should expect. And your comment to just walk away. That is often impractical or just not possible.
I agree that owning a dog is an emotional thing. We love our pets, but not everyone else does. Nor should we expect them to or demand they do.
Emotional support animals serve the same purpose as a teddy bear. Something to focus on and hold to transfer your distress to Think of the poor dog, for God's sake. It senses your distress, has no idea what is so wrong. Now you have made the poor dog miserable. Shame on you. Take a "happy" pill, grab your teddy bear and let the poor dog alone for its mental health.

The same can be said for those who have "an emotional response" to dogs...

They should simply take a "happy pill" and grab their teddy bear...

[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by GeoGeo

We were at a doctor's office and someone had their large service dog with a service dog vest on and it barked and barked and barked some more.

How sad.
THAT dog was probably not a service dog and it was in a doctor's office?
They should have made that person leave!
Personally, I would have told that person to take the dog out of the office.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

How sad.
THAT dog was probably not a service dog and it was in a doctor's office?
They should have made that person leave!
Personally, I would have told that person to take the dog out of the office.

My thought was that could have been the response to it sensing a seizure or some other problem. Did anyone bother to check with or check on the dog's owner?

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

The same can be said for those who have "an emotional response" to dogs...

They should simply take a "happy pill" and grab their teddy bear...

Wrong. That is like telling a soldier suffering from traumatic battle fatigue and physical abuse to take a sedative, grab a teddy bear and get back in the battle.
My point is that if I have anxiety ( I do ) and I get a dog for comfort and come home, my wife could be stressed by being confronted by the source of her very real major trauma. I don't have a dog, and instead take medication. It works and no poor dog was harmed physically or emotionally by me dumping my stress on the poor dog

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Wrong. That is like telling a soldier suffering from traumatic battle fatigue and physical abuse to take a sedative, grab a teddy bear and get back in the battle.
My point is that if I have anxiety ( I do ) and I get a dog for comfort and come home, my wife could be stressed by being confronted by the source of her very real major trauma. I don't have a dog, and instead take medication. It works and no poor dog was harmed physically or emotionally by me dumping my stress on the poor dog

Horrid analogy...

A better one would be that same veteran showing up at a 4th of July celebration and demanding that no one can enjoy fireworks...

Dogs love to serve. Don't assume that they are having "stressed dumped on them"...

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Horrid analogy...

A better one would be that same veteran showing up at a 4th of July celebration and demanding that no one can enjoy fireworks...

Dogs love to serve. Don't assume that they are having "stressed dumped on them"...

You analogy is false regarding most situations where the stress occurs. Using your scenario, the celebration was planned, no surprise. The vet makes a conscious decision to go. He knowingly creates his own circumstance.
My analogy, using your scenario would be; the veteran contacts a restaurant to arrange a quiet dinner for two for an anniversary. In the middle of the quiet dinner, a large, rowdy crowd comes in, loud music and pyrotechnics go off. The poor vet took pains to plan a peaceful evening, which was ruined. Not his fault.

As to " dogs love to serve". I just think they enjoy most interactions with their owners. Dogs are sensitive, empathetic and if you are in pain physically or mentally, they sense that and they feel bad too, only, they have no clue why you are troubled or what to do for you. So, you have transferred your stress and unhappiness onto them.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

You analogy is false regarding most situations where the stress occurs. Using your scenario, the celebration was planned, no surprise. The vet makes a conscious decision to go. He knowingly creates his own circumstance.
My analogy, using your scenario would be; the veteran contacts a restaurant to arrange a quiet dinner for two for an anniversary. In the middle of the quiet dinner, a large, rowdy crowd comes in, loud music and pyrotechnics go off. The poor vet took pains to plan a peaceful evening, which was ruined. Not his fault.

Sorry, but you cannot control what goes on around you in life...

If you want to try... Stay home...

As to " dogs love to serve". I just think they enjoy most interactions with their owners. Dogs are sensitive, empathetic and if you are in pain physically or mentally, they sense that and they feel bad too, only, they have no clue why you are troubled or what to do for you. So, you have transferred your stress and unhappiness onto them.

Or, they transfer their calm and happiness on to their owner...

[Whitley]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Replace "vet school" with any type of "med school" and you have the same fools...

They show up with a ream of paper printed out from "Web MD" and proceed to tell you you're wrong...

That said, I'm glad she found her calling. Not sure if taking over a $1/2 million in student loans was the best financial planning, but good luck to her!

If I could figure out how to start a new thread I would, however I can not. Speaking of Vets and MD's kind of fits in with my question. Are licensed M.D.'s required to take continuing education courses in their field to keep their medical license active?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Whitley

If I could figure out how to start a new thread I would, however I can not. Speaking of Vets and MD's kind of fits in with my question. Are licensed M.D.'s required to take continuing education courses in their field to keep their medical license active?

Yup... In my case, 50 hrs every 2 years...

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Yup... In my case, 50 hrs every 2 years...

Do all states have the same requirement?