News: Oregon Bill Defines Service Animal as Dogs

ORTLAND, Ore. – A proposed change in Oregon law would make it clearer what's a service dog and what's not.

If the Oregon bill becomes law, it would more closely match the changes in federal law when it comes to service animals. It would narrow the types of dogs allowed in places like grocery stores, boutiques and even apartments.

For someone like Patricia Kepler, who has been blind since she was 17 years old, a dog's not just a pet but a necessity. The increasing popularity of allowing dogs in stores and on MAX trains and buses, she says, puts her and her working guide dog, Nisha, at risk.

"My dog has been lunged at, especially in the MAX is the biggest problem," she said. "People bring their pet dogs on the MAX because there is no train operators in each of the cars and she's been lunged at and barked at. It's been an issue."Read More/Watch video

Multilingual Dog Relief Area Request Card

I thought I would share this multi-lingual card I created for a co-worker to use to better communicate with those providing her gate assistance at airports. It features four different images that are used indicate relief areas at the top with the phrase "Please take me to the dog relief area" in English, Spanish, French, Japanese, and Hindi.
Cut of the extra at the top, fold in half, and laminate! Voila!

News:m American Bar Association Urges Policies to Accommodate Disabled Persons Using Service Animals

The American Bar Association adopted a resolution in support of policies being developed in support of the accommodation of people with disabilities who utilize services as a reasonable accommodation/ means of mitigating the affects of their disabilities.

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges all federal, state, territorial, and local legislative bodies to repeal or amend all laws or policies inconsistent with the regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act and to implement policies to ensure that persons with disabilities utilizing service animals are provided access to services, programs and activities of public entities and public accommodations in compliance with the regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act in a manner that:

1. Permits the use of a service animal for individuals with physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental impairments;
2. Provides an individualized determination of whether an animal meets the definition of service animal, recognizing that service animals do a wide range of work or tasks for individuals with disabilities;
3. Provides for a size, weight and breed-neutral policy, utilizing a case-by-case analysis to determine whether a particular animal can be excluded from a public entity or public accommodation based on the particular’s animal’s actual behavior; and
4. Encourages the enforcement by the United States Department of Justice and other governmental authorities with responsibility for implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, in situations where individuals with disabilities utilizing service animals are denied access to services, programs and activities of public entities and public accommodations.

The supporting document for the resolution provides very clear and concise picture of the legalities supporting and defining service dogs as a concept in the United States complete with relevant case law and examples in just 4 pages of text. I highly recommend everyone have this in your files and personal knowledge bank!

News: Guide Dogs to be given access to St. Peterburg Metro

Guide Dogs in Metro

ST. PETERBURG (SPT) — Visually impaired people will soon be able to enter city metro stations with guide dogs.

A decree on the issue was signed by Stanislav Popov, head of the city’s Transport Committee, but it has not yet been put into effect, Interfax reported last week.

According to the document, visually impaired people will be allowed to bring one guide dog into the metro free of charge. The dog will be required to be wearing a muzzle, a leash and a sign identifying it as a guide dog. The owner must also have a document confirming that the dog has completed a course on guiding its owner in the metro.

News: Enforcing the ADA Report Service Animal Issues Featured

Settlement Under Title II of ADA
 "Title II, subtitle A, of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all services, programs, and activities provided to the public by State and local governments, except public transportation services."

• An individual with a disability complained that he was asked by a police officer to leave a California municipal park because he was accompanied by his service animal. The police department adopted, implemented, and publicly posted a service animal policy, conducted training on service animal issues for its employees, and provided information to residents on how to file ADA complaints.

Settlements Under Title III of ADA 
" Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in "places of public accommodation" (businesses and non-profit agencies that serve the public) and "commercial facilities" (other businesses)."

• An individual who uses a wheelchair complained that he, his wife and daughter, and friends were denied service at a South Carolina restaurant because he uses a service animal. The restaurant adopted and implemented a service animal policy, gave a copy of the policy to each employee, posted a notice welcoming service animals, and agreed to investigate and take steps to rectify any future complaints. They also compensated the complainant $500 and paid a $500 civil penalty. 
• An individual who has myasthenia gravis complained that the outpatient center of a Maryland hospital refused to provide her scheduled medical services because she uses a service animal. The hospital agreed to adopt and implement a policy permitting service animals in its facilities and, in instances when a service animal cannot be in the room during a procedure (such as an MRI), the hospital will provide, at no cost to the patient, a bonded pet sitting service if the patient is unable to bring a companion to look after the service animal. The hospital also agreed to train staff on ADA requirements and compensate the complainant $5,000.
• An individual who uses a service animal complained that a hotel in California refused to rent a room to her because of her service animal. The hotel agreed to adopt a service animal policy, post a disability nondiscrimination notice and a notice welcoming service animals in its reception area, in employee work areas, and on its website, train staff who have contact with guests and visitors on these policies, and pay the complainant $5,000.
• An individual with a disability complained that a Tennessee hotel charged her a $10 pet fee because she uses a service animal. Although ownership of the hotel had changed since the complaint was filed, the new owner agreed to adopt a service animal policy, post the policy and a disability nondiscrimination notice in employee work areas, maintain records documenting new employees' receipt and acknowledgment of the policy, conduct staff training on the policy for all employees who have contact with guests, and post a sign welcoming service animals in the reception area.
• An individual with a disability complained that a Florida resort attempted to charge him a pet fee because of his service animal. The resort adopted a policy welcoming service animals, modified its website and reservation materials to state that there is no charge for service animals, and posted signage regarding the new policy. 
• An individual with a disability complained that she was denied access to a Texas medical practice because she uses a service animal. The practice agreed to adopt, implement, and post a policy welcoming service animals and train its staff on the policy. 

Mediated Cases

• A couple complained that a California restaurant refused to serve them because one of them uses a service animal. The restaurant adopted a policy to serve customers who use service animals, developed employee training on the ADA's requirements for service animals, posted a sign indicating that service animals are welcome, and donated $3,200 to an advocacy organization.
• In California, an individual with epilepsy complained that a Mexican restaurant refused her access because she uses a service animal. The restaurant agreed to serve customers with service animals at both of its locations, trained its staff on the ADA's requirements for service animals, posted signs welcoming service animals at the entrance of both restaurants, and gave the complainant two complimentary lunches.

Read Entire Report

News: Chongqing (China) lets guide dogs for blind in public

CHONGQING - Blind residents will be able to take their guide dogs on public transportation in Chongqing as the municipal legislature revised a draft regulation on the protection of the disabled on Friday.
The regulation will take effect on Jan 1.
When a third draft of the regulation was delivered for discussion at the meeting of the municipal people's congress standing committee on Wednesday, a stipulation that "blind people can take their guide dogs to public venues and public transportation", which appeared in the second draft, had been removed.
The reason given for the removal was that it conflicted with the local regulations on the management of rail traffic, which say: "No pets and other animals are allowed to be brought on the rail transport system and violators will be fined 20 yuan to 100 yuan ($3 to $15.4)".Read More

News: Comments Needed on Service Animal Relief Areas in Airports

The Department of Transportation is seeking comment on service animal relief areas in airport by Nov. 28, 2011.

Service Animal Relief Areas

    The 2008 amendment to part 382 requires U.S. and foreign air 
carriers to work with airport operators to provide service animal 
relief areas at U.S. airports. Part 27 does not include a provision 
that mirrors this requirement. As such, the Department proposes to 
amend part 27 by inserting a provision that would require airport 
operators to work with carriers to establish relief areas for service 
animals that accompany passengers with disabilities departing, 
connecting, or arriving at U.S. airports.
    Part 382 does not provide specific directives regarding the design, 
number, or location of service animal relief areas an airport should 
have; it simply requires carriers to provide service animal relief 
areas in cooperation with the airports and in consultation with service 
animal training organizations concerning the design of service animal 
relief areas. However, in a Frequently Asked Questions document issued 
by the Department's Aviation Enforcement Office on May 13, 2009, 
examples of factors airlines and airports should consider in 
designating and constructing areas for service animal relief at U.S. 
airports are provided.\1\ Factors to consider in establishing relief 
areas include the size and surface material of the area, maintenance, 
and distance to relief area which could vary based on the size and 
configuration of the airport. The Department seeks comment about 
whether it should adopt requirements regarding the design of service 
animal relief areas and what, if any, provisions the rule should 
include concerning the dimensions, materials used, and maintenance for 
relief areas.Read More

 People can submit their comments online http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-2011-0182-0001

Happy 21st ADA!

Happy 21st to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)!
Find out what the ADA Does and it's history at ADA Anniversary Resources.

News: DOJ Status Report on Enforcing the ADA Released

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently released a status report detailing their efforts to enforce Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In this report there are 14 instances involving the denial of access to services or discrimination against a  person with a disability because they were accompanied by a service animal (dog) during a period from July 2010- September 2010.

1. On July 19, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska entered a consent decree resolving a simultaneously filed lawsuit against QuikTrip Corporation, a company that owns and operates more than 550 gas stations, convenience stores, travel centers, and truck stops in the Midwest, South, and Southwestern United States. Under the terms of the decree, QuikTrip will remove barriers over a three year period at its current stores to achieve compliance with ADA accessibility requirements; ensure that at least two gas dispensers at current stores and all gas dispensers at future stores are accessible to individuals with disabilities, including the dispenser controls, self-service payment mechanisms, and call buttons for customers who need assistance; adopt, implement, and train store employees on policies for providing refueling and other types of assistance for people with disabilities, serving people who use service animals, and maintaining accessible features, such as accessible parking and routes; upgrade and maintain call buttons for customers with disabilities requesting assistance; and implement and maintain an ADA comment line and a complaint resolution process to resolve ADA-related complaints received from customers. QuikTrip will also design and construct future stores to comply with ADA accessibility requirements and will make its website accessible. In addition, QuikTrip will create a $1.5 million compensatory damages fund for individuals who were victims of discrimination and will pay a civil penalty in the amount of $55,000.
2. On July 14, 2010, the owner and operator of the Sheraton Grand Sacramento Hotel in Sacramento, California, entered into a settlement agreement resolving a complaint by a hotel guest with a disability who was required to pay a pet deposit and was assigned to the pet floor because she was accompanied by her service animal. In the settlement, the hotel agreed to adopt an ADA-compliant service animal policy, write to 33 other Sheraton hotels around the country encouraging them to ensure equal access for guests with disabilities who use service animals, and pay $500 in compensatory damages to the complainant.
3. On July 19, 2010, Blockbuster, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement with the Department resolving a complaint filed by an individual with a disability who was denied access on multiple occasions at different Blockbuster stores when she attempted to shop while accompanied by a service animal, even after contacting Blockbuster, Inc., and receiving assurances that she would be allowed to shop at Blockbuster stores with her service animal. The agreement requires Blockbuster to adopt and implement a comprehensive service animal policy, provide training to employees at more than 3,000 retail stores throughout the United States about the policy, post its service animal policy and signs welcoming service animals in each of its stores, and establish a toll-free number and a grievance procedure for resolving ADA complaints from customers. Blockbuster will also pay $12,000 in compensatory damages to the complainant and a $10,000 civil penalty to the United States.
4. On September 10, 2010, the American Hospitality Inn in Portland, Oregon, entered into a settlement agreement with the Department resolving a complaint from a man who is blind who, when registering for a room at the hotel, produced a state issued identification card and a Veteran's Administration identification card but was turned away because he did not have a driver's license for identification. Under the terms of the settlement, the hotel will adopt a formal policy on acceptable forms of identification as well as a service animal policy. The hotel will also pay $1000 in compensatory damages to the complainant.
5. An individual with congenital heart failure complained that a New Jersey medical clinic refused to allow her into the clinic because she uses a service animal. The clinic adopted a service animal policy, posted signs welcoming service animals, and trained its employees about the policy.
6. An individual with a disability who uses a wheelchair complained that an Indiana hotel refused her service because she uses a service animal. The hotel adopted a service animal policy, posted the policy in a conspicuous location, and trained staff on the policy.
7. An individual who is deaf and uses a service animal complained that a Tennessee hotel asked him to leave because of the hotel's no pet policy. The hotel agreed to adopt a service animal policy, post information for guests about the policy, train employees about the policy, and provide information to guests about filing an ADA complaint. The hotel also agreed to pay the complainant $750.
8. An individual who is blind complained that a Texas convenience store refused to serve him because he uses a service animal. The store agreed to adopt a service animal policy, post signs informing customers about the policy, train employees about the policy, and pay the complainant $1,500
9. An individual with a mobility disability who uses a service animal complained that a chain motel in Arizona refused to serve him. The motel agreed to adopt a service animal policy, post signs informing customers about the policy, and train employees about the policy.
10. An individual with a disability alleged that a New Jersey medical facility refused to serve him because he uses a service animal. The facility agreed to adopt a service animal policy, train all current and new employees on the policy, post the policy in all of its locations where patients are served, and pay the complainant $1,000.
11. An individual who is blind and uses a service animal complained that the manager of a Dallas retail store asked him to leave because of concerns that his service animal would damage store merchandise. The store agreed to adopt a service animal policy, post signs informing customers about the policy, train employees about the policy, and pay the complainant $1,500.
12. In Florida, a woman with multiple sclerosis alleged that a restaurant refused to serve her and her husband inside the restaurant because she uses a service animal for balance. The owner offered to serve them in an alley adjacent to the restaurant and, when they refused, insulted them, asked them to leave, and ultimately escorted them out of the building. The restaurant adopted a policy to allow patrons who use service animals to enter and be served in the restaurant, informed employees about the policy, and posted signage indicating that service animals are welcome in the restaurant.
13. An individual with low vision who uses a service animal complained that a California restaurant refused to serve him. The restaurant changed its policy and agreed to serve customers who use service animals, developed employee training on service animals and the ADA, made a $500 donation to a service animal organization, and issued an apology letter to the complainant's family who was with him when the incident occurred.
14. In New Jersey, a woman who uses a wheelchair complained that the manager of a chain restaurant harassed her and asked her to leave because she uses a service animal for mobility assistance. The national chain changed its policy and agreed to serve customers who use service animals, circulated an article on the updated policy through an internal corporate publication for employees, and trained all employees on the ADA. The chain also posted signs welcoming service animals at each restaurant's entrance. In addition, the manager who asked the complainant to leave sent her an apology letter, and the chain donated $1,000 in the complainant's name to a service animal organization and gave her two $50 gift certificates. 

 To read synopsis of other cases visit http://www.ada.gov/julysep10.htm here you can also access full case documents.

News: National Association of Guide Dog Association Launches Innovative Hotline

The National Association of Guide Dog Users (NAGDU), has launched an
innovative new service. The NAGDU Education & Advocacy Hotline not only offers
information about the legal rights of individuals who use service animals, it
offers the option to speak with an advocate who is trained to resolve access
denials. According to the new federal guidelines that took effect on March 15,
2011, a service animal is "any dog that is individually trained to do work or
perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability" (28 CFR Part
35.104 & 28 CFR Part 36.104). The new regulations specifically state, "Other
species
of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service
animals for the purposes of this definition." In an effort to Further clarify
its intent, the Department of Justice specifically states, "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."
"We find that most access problems are the result of a lack of
information," says Michael Hingson, the Association's vice president, who serves
as project manager for the hotline. "This hotline is an excellent resource for
accurate information."
The NAGDU Education & Advocacy Hotline currently offers general
information about service animals under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), as well as specific guidance concerning restaurants, taxicabs, and health
care facilities. Callers needing immediate assistance can connect directly to a
live trained advocate. Future plans for the hotline include
summaries of each of the state laws concerning service animals, more
industry-specific information, and guidance in a variety of languages, such as
Mandarin and Arabic. The hotline is available anytime by calling, toll- free,
(866) - 972 - 3647.

News: Service Dogs Teach Educators About Disabilities

May 14, 2011
Many disabled people say that life without their service animals is unthinkable. And while public institutions are required to admit service animals without question, some public schools claim they cannot handle the disruption of a dog in a busy classroom.
Disabled students are hoping new federal guidelines will help them avoid legal battles over their animals.Read More or Listen to Story

News: Service Dogs Under Protection?

By Gia Vang

EUGENE, Ore. -- When a service dog is injured by a dangerous dog, the City of Eugene doesn't do much about it. But that could soon change after the City Council takes up the existing animal code on Monday.

The current ordinance doesn't distinguish service dogs from other breeds.

So, if service dogs get hurt by another dog, staff say they're not as protected as they should be.Read More

Disability Law Lowdown covers Service Animals

Disability Law Lowdown 48 - Service Animals Pt 1
This podcast discusses the definition of service animal, changes under the new proposed regulations, and how service animals are treated under Titles I, II, and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
(Running time is 12:42, filesize is 11.7MB)
Listen to show: Disability Law Lowdown 48 - Service Animals Pt 1 

Disability Law Lowdown 49 - Service Animals Pt 2
In the second part of the service animal series, Jacquie Brennan looks at the rights of individuals with disabilities who own service animals or comfort animals under the Fair Housing Act.
(Running time is 07:11, filesize is 6.8MB)
Listen to show: Disability Law Lowdown 49 - Service Animals Pt 2
or
read the shownotes and transcript for show 49. 

Disability Law Lowdown 50 - Service Animals Part 3
Service Animals and the ACAA: In the third part of the service animal series, Jacquie Brennan discusses the rights of air passengers who use service animals, the definition of service animal under the Air Carrier Access Act, and the documentation requirements under the Act.
(Running time is 08:15, filesize is 7.6MB)
Listen to show: Disability Law Lowdown 50 - Service Animals Part 3
or
read the shownotes and transcript for show 50.

New Definition of A Service Animal in Effect Today!

After more that two years of discussions, advocating, and debating the clarified definition of what is a service animal under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the new rules including the new definition of what constitutes a service animal go in effect today! Read the Amended sections of Title II of the ADA (the word service animal appears in this document 226 times!) These provisions were issued September 15, 2010. Then go on over and read the corrections that apply to this section that were issued March 11, 2011. The word service animal appears in this short, 2-page, document 27 times!
Of course the service animal provisions are not the only sections of the ADA to be amended, see the press release issued yesterday for some more interesting areas of change

News: Leapin' Lizards! Service Animals Are Multiplying Like Doggone Rabbits Skippy the Iguana Keeps His Owner Calm, But Therapy Dog Maxx Is an Impostor

By ANN ZIMMERMAN

Rhonda Kimmel's 11-year-old West Highland terrier, Maxx, goes with her everywhere—to the mall, restaurants and even to the bank.

Cosmie Silfa relies on an unusual companion to help him stay clean and sober: Skippy, a four-year-old iguana. But changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act could decertify Skippy as an official service animal. WSJ's Clare Major reports.

What gives Maxx entree to places normally off-limits to canines and other animals is the embroidered, purple vest he sports. It says: "Therapy Dog Maxx."
Maxx is a lot of things, including well-behaved, and he is a faithful companion. What he is not, however, is a therapy dog or a service dog, and Ms. Kimmel is not disabled. Read More

Other SDAWL Articles on fake Service dogs/ fraud:

• Commentary: Controversy over "Fake" Service Dogs

• People Claiming Their Dogs are Service Dogs to Take them in Public Beware 

•  News: Proposed Changes to the Definition of Service Dog 

• News:Trimet Board Member Suggests Punishing all Service Dogs Over the Actions of a Fraud 

• News: Backlash from dog killing on Portland Public Transit

• News: Service with a Snarl 

•  Commentary: Certification- A Myth in The USA

News: Today- California Department of Consumer Affairs Offers Webcast, Panel About ADA Service Animals

California Department of Consumer Affairs Offers Webcast, Panel
About ADA Service Animals

Written by  Dan Oney   
February 22, 2011 
The State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind will host a
conference Wednesday, February 23, in Sacramento to discuss
impending changes to the legal definition of service animals in
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The new rules, which become law on March 15, will affect users of
service animals, as well as the hospitality industry, retailers
and other businesses that accommodate the public.

"We've had a number of inquiries on this issue," said Eric Holm,
President of the Board. "We know there's some confusion in the
business community and among service dog users about the new
rules, so we've invited representatives from the U. S. Department
of Justice and the advocacy group Disability Rights California to
discuss the changes and answer questions."

Key portions of the law to be discussed include the following:


.Only dogs are recognized as service animals, and only dogs that
have been trained to perform specific tasks that mitigate the
effect of a disability can be a service animal;
.Dogs whose sole function is to provide emotional support are
excluded from the definition of service animal;
.There are no limits on breeds of dogs;
.Businesses are generally required to accommodate trained
miniature horses as service animals.
State service animal access laws will also be explained.

The seminar is set to begin at 9 AM at the Department of Consumer
Affairs Headquarters in Sacramento. For those wishing to
participate but are out of town, the seminar will also be webcast
at the DCA's website.

The webcast is scheduled to begin at 8:45AM pst and can be found
at:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/multimedia/webcast_current.shtml
Approximately 15 minutes prior to the event, the audio and/or
video Webcast links will be added, providing a direct audio/video
feed.

News: Pa. committee clears bill for service dog protection

HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM) - Dog owners could face civil and criminal penalties if their pets kill or maim a service animal under legislation approved Tuesday by the state House Judiciary Committee.
House Bill 165 allows for fines of up to $1,000 and jail time of up to two years, and would require those convicted to pay veterinary or replacement costs. Read More

Laws Protect and Impose Penalties for Interferring, Injuring, or Killing Service Dogs

More than half the states have laws laws on the books protecting service dogs and their handlers for interference, injury, or death caused by a person or their animal, based on a self conducted count of the results in a Google search. I have wanted to write this post for a while, but I didn't know of a good compilation until recently. I discovered the Harm to Service Animals and Criminal Interference Laws
Resource from the Animal Legal and Historical Center at the University of Michigan.
Many people don't see any harm in:

• letting through dog "say hi" to a working service dog
• Coming up, grabbing and petting a service dog
• Barking, whistling, clapping their hands, talking to in a baby voice, or making kissy noises with the intent of attracting the attention of a working service dog
• Throwing food or other objects at a working service dog 
• Yelling a working dog's name with the intent to distract them 
• Crawling on the floor trying to pet a working service dog
• Issuing commands to a service dog to see if it will listen even just one to them
• Hitting,kicking or purposely stepping on a working service dog to see if they can make it react
• Allowing their children to do any of these behaviors

I know some of the things on the list seem unbelievable, but they do happen to most teams at some point in their partnership. These things often seem funny,or harmless to the people doing them because they:
a) love dogs so much they can't help themselves
b) want to see if the dog is really as well trained as everyone says
c) want to be able to provoke a dog to bad behavior because they don't like/fear dogs and know  if the dogs act up they will have to leave
d) think that they or their children should be allowed to play with or do whatever they want because these dog are there and are safe
I can think of many instances in the media such as the women whose guide was dropped kicked off it's feet, and the hearing dog who was attacked by off-leash dogs in a mall parking lot (warning very graphic description) to name a few.

Sadly, I also have no shortage of instances in my own life both minor and large where people, their children, and/or their pets have interfered with my service dog safely executing their duties in peace.

• Bastien and I were crossing a five lane street when someone who knew us from the bus decided to call his name when we were in the middle of the crosswalk causing him to stop,turn and look as he was trained to do leaving me stopped in the middle of the street. Most crosswalks don't give me enough time  to get safely across going as fast as we could, it was something I never allowed this to happen again because I stopped giving out his name.
• Bastien and went to a neighborhood store one Sunday morning to pick up a few items for brunch.Bastien was minding his own business laying as close the the case as he could get to be out of the way while waiting for me to decide what I wanted, when I felt his head turn toward his tail. I turned to see what was bothering him,and was astonished to see an eight year old child  repeatedly purposely stepping on his tail. I told her to please stop stepping on my dog and she did it again! I told her again to stop stepping on my dog. This time her mother heard me and proceeded to start screaming at me tat her daughter could do whatever she wanted and ,well let's just say the situation continued to deteriorate until store staff who knew us came to our rescue.
• The college students on the bus to work who repeatedly call to, make noises at, and pet Shilo. This happens so often I have lost count.
• The women on the Amtrak who decided it was a good idea to come up behind a strange dog (Shilo), and start scratching her behind without saying a word to her or me while we were trying to exit the train.
• The dog shut in a car at the beach with the window down starting to come out the window,barking and bearing its teeth while the owner who was twenty feet away tried to convince us the dog was "harmless". We, My roommate,her guide Cammy,and Shilo, decide it wasn't harmless back tracked crossed the road and went up the other side where the side walk was non-existent.

I could go on for pages with various stories. I am fortunate that none of these instances have caused me or my service injury or death. However, it is not at all hard for me to imaging anyone of the above situations having turned out very differently. Service dogs are with their owners to assist them in: navigating a world that remains difficult at the best of times; give them the help they need when and how they need it rather than hoping for someone to decide to help then hoping the person doesn't hurt them somehow in the process;being able to actively decide and participate in the business of living their lives. The time you have the urge or see someone actively trying to distract or interfere with a service dog, I hope you will think of the real danger your seemly harmless action  may cause choosing instead to exercise self-control and admire our dogs quietly, from distance. 

News: Disability Community Candidate's Forum- October 6, 2010

All you Washington State readers don't miss this chance to mingle with candidates and discuss issues important to service dog partners. 
Disability Community Candidate's Forum

Sponsored by: Seattle Commission for People with disAbilities, Alliance of People with Disabilities, the State Independent Living Council, and the University Heights Community Center Association

Date: Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Time: 6 pm to 9 pm

Place: University Heights Community Center, Room 209

Address: 5031 University Way NE, Seattle, WA 98105

Parking: Free on-street or off-street; available in center's south lot from University Way NE.

Access: Available with lift from southern west entrance up to and including 2nd floor; additional free parking available from Brooklyn Ave NE for north lot and accessible entrance. Staff will be available for lift assistance.

Bus lines: Proximate to Metro Bus Routes 70-74 on University Way NE, 66 and 67 on 11th Ave NE, among others.

Notes: All candidates for state legislator in King County are invited. This is a non-partisan event. 

RSVP to Event Contact Julian Wheeler, at julianfwheeler@aol.com. 

 

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