Yappy Hour! by Lexi Dog

Are you looking for an event to take your service dog in training for practice with public access and working in public? Just want to hang out with other dog people? This event might be for you!

Join us for an ICE CREAM SOCIAL at this month's Yappy Hour on Sunday, August 1st, where delicious frozen doggie treats will be served to our favorite four-legged pals!
 
Come mingle with other dog lovers, enjoy fine wines and food from LaVelle Bistro & Wine Bar, and spend some time out in the sun with your dogs!
 
Date: Sunday, August 1, 2010

Time: 3-5pm

Place: The patio at LaVelle Bistro & Wine Bar
at 5th Street Market in Eugene

Join us for an ICE CREAM SOCIAL at this month's Yappy Hour on Sunday, August 1st, where delicious frozen doggie treats will be served to our favorite four-legged pals!
 
Come mingle with other dog lovers, enjoy fine wines and food from LaVelle Bistro & Wine Bar, and spend some time out in the sun with your dogs!
 
Date: Sunday, August 1, 2010

Time: 3-5pm

Place: The patio at LaVelle Bistro & Wine Bar
at 5th Street Market in Eugene

News: Unleashing Abilities: The Genius of Dogs-Lecture

Maureen “Mo” Maurer, founder of Hawaii Canines for Independence (HCI) and Cate Dorr, assistant trainer for HCI, will present their research on Canine Cognition and Communication and the development of Canine Sign Language (CSL). Yes, that’s right–glance commands for those who cannot communicate verbally with their service dogs.Read More

News: Vida and Old Age

Retirement of a service dog.. The dog's eye view,

by Jill Sweet

Jill tells me that when she is out with Moses, some people get a concerned look on their face and then they ask her if I am still around. Yes, I am still here. To prove it, I am writing this week's column. The theme of my column is "getting old is a real B _ _ _ _ !!!" And I don't mean a female dog.Read More

News:Changes in theDefinition of Service Animal under the ADA

Service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the handler´s disability. Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to, assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, providing non-violent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a seizure, alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors. The crime deterrent effects of an animal´s presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.

§ 35.136 Service animals

(a) General. Generally, a public entity shall modify its policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability.
(b) Exceptions. A public entity may ask an individual with a disability to remove a service animal from the premises if--
(1) The animal is out of control and the animal´s handler does not take effective action to control it; or
(2) The animal is not housebroken.
(c) If an animal is properly excluded. If a public entity properly excludes a service animal under § 35.136(b), it shall give the individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in the service, program, or activity without having the service animal on the premises.
(d) Animal under handler´s control. A service animal shall be under the control of its handler. A service animal shall have a harness, leash, or other tether, unless either the handler is unable because of a disability to use a harness, leash, or other tether, or the use of a harness, leash, or other tether would interfere with the service animal´s safe, effective performance of work or tasks, in which case the service animal must be otherwise under the handler´s control (e.g., voice control, signals, or other effective means).
(e) Care or supervision. A public entity is not responsible for the care or supervision of a service animal.
(f) Inquiries. A public entity shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person´s disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. A public entity may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. A public entity shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Generally, a public entity may not make these inquiries about a service animal when it is readily apparent that an animal is trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability (e.g., the dog is observed guiding an individual who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person´s wheelchair, or providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with an observable mobility disability).
(g) Access to areas of a public entity. Individuals with disabilities shall be permitted to be accompanied by their service animals in all areas of a public entity´s facilities where members of the public, participants in services, programs or activities, or invitees, as relevant, are allowed to go.
(h) Surcharges. A public entity shall not ask or require an individual with a disability to pay a surcharge, even if people accompanied by pets are required to pay fees, or to comply with other requirements generally not applicable to people without pets. If a public entity normally charges individuals for the damage they cause, an individual with a disability may be charged for damage caused by his or her service animal.
(i) Miniature horses. (A) A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.
(B) Assessment factors. In determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility, a public entity shall consider--
(1) The type, size, and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility can accommodate these features;
(2) Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse;
(3) Whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and
(4) Whether the miniature horse´s presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.
(C) Other requirements. Paragraphs 35.136 (c) through (h) of this section, which apply to service animals, shall also apply to miniature horses.

Providing minimal protection. As previously noted, the 1991 title II regulation does not contain specific language concerning service animals. The 1991 title III regulation included language stating that "minimal protection" was a task that could be performed by an individually trained service animal for the benefit of an individual with a disability. In the Department´s "ADA Business Brief on Service Animals" (2002), the Department interpreted the "minimal protection" language within the context of a seizure (i.e., alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure). The Department received many comments in response to the question of whether the "minimal protection" language should be clarified. Many commenters urged the removal of the "minimal protection" language from the service animal definition for two reasons: (1) the phrase can be interpreted to allow any dog that is trained to be aggressive to qualify as a service animal simply by pairing the animal with a person with a disability; and (2) the phrase can be interpreted to allow any untrained pet dog to qualify as a service animal, since many consider the mere presence of a dog to be a crime deterrent, and thus sufficient to meet the minimal protection standard. These commenters argued, and the Department agrees, that these interpretations were not contemplated under the original title III regulation, and, for the purposes of the final title II regulations, the meaning of "minimal protection" must be made clear.
While many commenters stated that they believe that the "minimal protection" language should be eliminated, other commenters recommended that the language be clarified, but retained. Commenters favoring clarification of the term suggested that the Department explicitly exclude the function of attack or exclude those animals that are trained solely to be aggressive or protective. Other commenters identified non-violent behavioral tasks that could be construed as minimally protective, such as interrupting self-mutilation, providing safety checks and room searches, reminding the handler to take medications, and protecting the handler from injury resulting from seizures or unconsciousness.
Several commenters noted that the existing direct threat defense, which allows the exclusion of a service animal if the animal exhibits unwarranted or unprovoked violent behavior or poses a direct threat, prevents the use of "attack dogs" as service animals. One commenter noted that the use of a service animal trained to provide "minimal protection" may impede access to care in an emergency, for example, where the first responder, usually a title II entity, is unable or reluctant to approach a person with a disability because the individual´s service animal is in a protective posture suggestive of aggression.
Many organizations and individuals stated that in the general dog training community, "protection" is code for attack or aggression training and should be removed from the definition.
Commenters stated that there appears to be a broadly held misconception that aggression-trained animals are appropriate service animals for persons with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). While many individuals with PTSD may benefit by using a service animal, the work or tasks performed appropriately by such an animal would not involve unprovoked aggression but could include actively cuing the handler by nudging or pawing the handler to alert to the onset of an episode and removing the individual from the anxiety-provoking environment.
The Department recognizes that despite its best efforts to provide clarification, the "minimal protection" language appears to have been misinterpreted. While the Department maintains that protection from danger is one of the key functions that service animals perform for the benefit of persons with disabilities, the Department recognizes that an animal individually trained to provide aggressive protection, such as an attack dog, is not appropriately considered a service animal. Therefore, the Department has decided to modify the "minimal protection" language to read "non-violent protection," thereby excluding so-called "attack dogs" or dogs with traditional "protection training" as service animals. The Department believes that this modification to the service animal definition will eliminate confusion, without restricting unnecessarily the type of work or tasks that service animals may perform. The Department´s modification also clarifies that the crime-deterrent effect of a dog´s presence, by itself, does not qualify as work or tasks for purposes of the service animal definition.
Alerting to intruders. The phrase "alerting to intruders" is related to the issues of minimal protection and the work or tasks an animal may perform to meet the definition of a service animal. In the original 1991 regulatory text, this phrase was intended to identify service animals that alert individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of others. This language has been misinterpreted by some to apply to dogs that are trained specifically to provide aggressive protection, resulting in the assertion that such training qualifies a dog as a service animal under the ADA. The Department reiterates that title II entities are not required to admit any animal whose use poses a direct threat under § 35.139. In addition, the Department has decided to remove the word "intruders" from the service animal definition and replace it with the phrase "the presence of people or sounds." The Department believes this clarifies that so-called "attack training" or other aggressive response types of training that cause a dog to provide an aggressive response do not qualify a dog as a service animal under the ADA.
Conversely, if an individual uses a breed of dog that is perceived to be aggressive because of breed reputation, stereotype, or the history or experience the observer may have with other dogs, but the dog is under the control of the individual with a disability and does not exhibit aggressive behavior, the title II entity cannot exclude the individual or the animal from a State or local government program, service, or facility. The animal can only be removed if it engages in the behaviors mentioned in § 35.136(b) (as revised in the final rule) or if the presence of the animal constitutes a fundamental alteration to the nature of the service, program, or activity of the title II entity.

Note: the ADA is still silent on dogs still silent on dogs in  training.These are some of the key changes, but is still more material to read.Read More
http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/reg2_2010.html

Book Review: Bridging Differences within the Disability Community: The Assistance Dog Movement

Ed Eames, Co-Founder of the International Association  Assistance Dog Partners wrote Bridging Differences within the Disability Community: The Assistance Dog Movement in 2001. This succinct article provides a history of the service dog movement,culture, and community in the USA. Ever wonder when guide dogs became a reality in the US, How IAADP came to be, or what the estimated number of service dog partners are in the US? This article will answer these questions and more. As the Disability Community celebrates the 20th anniversary of the ADA , it is important to the ADA defined the term service animal on a federal level.

News: Prince Harry Visits Canine Partners for Life

Prince Harry of England's recently visited to Canine Partners to learn more about their work supporting military veterans following his first hand military experience.

Andy Cook says: “The visit by Prince Harry is a huge boost to  Canine Partners and we thoroughly enjoyed showing him how we train the dogs to help people with disabilities.  He was very interested in our work with the Armed Forces, and had a long private chat with petty officer Stephen Brookes about how the dogs can make such a difference to injured servicemen and women.  The Prince proved to be a competent handler with the more advanced dogs in training, and a big hit with the younger puppies who vied with each other to get the most cuddles!  He spoke to many of our working partnerships, giving him an insight into the variety of ways a canine partner can help his disabled owner.” Read More about the Prince's visit

Trigger warning: Militarily scenes and sounds from on going conflicts in video below

Video from the Today Show of Prince Harry  to Canine Partners.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

News: Service animal regulations may soon change

Other posts on this topic:

• http://servicedogsawayoflife.blogspot.com/2008/08/news-proposed-changes-to-definition-of.html
• http://servicedogsawayoflife.blogspot.com/2009/01/news-leak-of-new-service-animal.html
• http://servicedogsawayoflife.blogspot.com/2009/01/news-more-on-leaked-doj-rules-regarding.html

News: Happy 20th to the ADA

This year marks the 20th Anniversary of the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act.I hope my readers enjoy the post-a-thon celebration this momentous law.

Note:Sorry We have been out of Commission

I have been out of commission working then my wisdom teeth went awry,turns out all four need to be pulled!Shiloh has been helping a lot.Helping me balance and stay in touch though the drug stupor. Tooth pain is no joke, I am kind of scared the weight loss since I can't eat and the pain meds are making me nauseous. I hope to have the surgery scheduled this week.Shiloh will not be accompanying me since I am in no shape to be a proper handler to her.