Assistance Creatures

Agoraphobia Service Monkey Lawsuit Rejected; Seizure Alert Ferret Kicked Out of Mall

rskloot — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:34:32 +0000

Agoraphobia Service Monkey Lawsuit Rejected; Seizure Alert Ferret Kicked Out of Mall

Today was a big day for non-canine service animal news, which I keep tabs on here as part of ongoing follow up to my New York Times Magazine article, Creature Comforts, about the use of non-canine service animals (which include ducks, monkeys, horses, goats, and at least one kangaroo). The biggest news is that a court in Missouri has rejected the discrimination case filed by Debby Rose, who I featured in my story. She was forbidden to bring her Macaque monkey Richard into local businesses, despite the fact that she says he's a service monkey trained to help with her agoraphobia (Richard pictured above driving with Debby).

In addition to ruling that Richard wasn't a service animal, the judge also
rejected Rose's claim that she qualifies as disabled under the
Americans With Disabilities act. The full ruling is online here as a PDF. In other non-canine service animal news, a Winston-Salem man was kicked out of a local mall because of what he says is his seizure-alert service ferret.

h/t @matthewATlaw - thanks for the notice

rskloot Sun, 10/25/2009 - 14:34

Tags

animals

Assistance Creatures

Disability Rights

Americans With Disabilities Act

Publication News and Follow Ups

Service Animals

I have never understood why a lice-laden, virus-infected coughing, sneezing obnoxious human is allowed in a mall, restaurant, plane, etc. when a clean, quiet, healthy dog is not. Go to Germany: many restaurants permit dogs to accompany owners and never a problem noted in the seven years we lived there.

I can understand wanting to prevent abuses of the service animals exception these new service animal rules detail, but I don't think dogs are always capable or wanted by every disabled person. While a service horse seems a little silly (stairs would be a real problem, as would training out the flight instinct), I don't think a service ferret is all that extreme. A trainable creature that's easily carried around, quiet and not prone to making a mess? Also not as flighty or aggressive as the average cat and fewer people allergic to it? Not a bad idea.
I had a ferret myself once. He was the tamest creature I've ever had, a real goofball. I was seriously considering bringing him to therapy sessions for the elderly or infirm before I had to give him up once I went to college. Knowing how great a well-socialized ferret can be as a pet and how scary-smart they are, I think they'd make great service animals especially for those with anxiety problems who need a source of comfort that can take their minds off stressful situations.

I thought your NYT magazine story was great. I just find it hard to believe that there is an epidemic of "fake" service animals. I have lived all over and live in the DC area now, and I have not seen any onslaught of service animals -- legitimate or not. Why not utilize the same process used to get a handicap parking sticker / tag? Yes, there are probably people who possess a handicap parking tag that don't deserve them, but is it the best use of resources to try to hunt the few down by harrassing the many??? I think it is more of a problem that the health department felt that it was acceptable to target and humiliate Debby Rose, than it is that she takes a monkey around with her.

This is an abomination. Agoraphobia is an illness. It may be a mental illness, but mental illness is a physical illness, because the last time I looked, the brain appears to be a physical organ in the body and therefore subject to malfunctioning the same way a liver or kidney might be.
I don't believe that a "judge" is a medical doctor, equipped to measure or determine someone's need for a device that helps them function in the world. If I were a judge, the only question I might ask would be, does the benefit of this service animal to this individual outweigh the risks to the public if this animal is brought into a mall? If the animal is well trained, and on a leash, then I don't see a problem with it being considered a service animal. What is worse is that this ill person is being told that her condition is not "real enough" to warrant whatever brings her relief; kind of like taking away pain killers from someone with back pain. "Just get over it" doesn't work here, and this poor person will not be able to be a productive member of society, thanks to this "judge". So sad. I hope this person is able to appeal this ruling and fight for all those that suffer from real illnesses appearing unreal to those that can't possibly understand the truth about mental illnesses and the stigma that goes with them.

As someone with a PSD, I am all for service animals for people with invisible disabilities as they are a great asset. That said, a service animal is required to be clean, polite, and trained to do tasks or work to aid its disabled handler. From reading the court case, Richard was clean, however, he had manners that were lacking, and had no trained work or tasks. (The things described as what he did, were actually incredibly rude behavior and borderline hostile in monkey speak.) His handler was considered to be NOT DISABLED...by her own admission on several previous documents before this court case arose. Anyone severely impaired by mental illness will have seen doctors often, and will almost always be on medications and/or other treatment therapy. I personally find the fact that she got married a few times and had children irrelevant, however, I can't picture anyone that i know (including myself) with agrophobia and other panic disorders ever considering going on national TV.

"Seeing Eye Horse" - Good Morning America Segment on Non-Canine Service Animals Misses Key Issues

rskloot — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:35:43 +0000

"Seeing Eye Horse" - Good Morning America Segment on Non-Canine Service Animals Misses Key Issues

Today, in their segment called "Seeing Eye Horse Shocks Store Patrons," Good Morning America featured a woman riding her full sized "Seeing Eye horse" through the grocery store (pictured left). In doing so, it made one of the most common media mistakes: focusing on the quirk factor (woman riding horse in store!) at the expense of the issues involved. The result is a classic oversimplification of a complex story that's pretty misleading about the use of horses as service animals: Most non-canine service animal
users are not, in fact, people who ride horses through stores.

As far as I could tell in my reporting, the woman featured in
Good Morning America's segment is the only person
who uses a
full size horse as a guide. People actually use miniature horses for
the job, which are much less obtrusive, and more useful as service
animals because they function in the same way guide dogs do.
Unfortunately, Good Morning America (GMA)
didn't mention that -- instead, they gave the impression that there are
numerous blind people riding around in stores on guide horses. It also
repeated the often cited misconception that horses aren't as
house-trainable as dogs. They are.

I knew this segment was in the works because GMA contacted the people who appeared in my New York Times Magazine story
a day or so after it ran. What's interesting is that GMA spent a day
interviewing Ann Edie, the guide miniature horse user featured in my
story. But Ann doesn't appear in their segment -- I can't help but
wonder if they didn't include Ann because she isn't, in fact, quirky.
Which was a fact I focused on in my article -- many problems faced by
non-canine service animal users stem from the fact that they're often
portrayed in the media as simply being wacky or crazy. But Ann and the
other guide miniature horse users I talked with were neither of those
things. I know Ann had hoped that talking to Good Morning America
would help spread information about the complicated issues surrounding
the proposed changes to the Americans With Disabilities Act, which
would ban the use of all non-canine service animals. But the segment
didn't go into those issues at all.

For more information on non-canine service animals and the proposed ADA changes, see Creature Comforts, as well as the extensive follow up on this blog (which includes comments from non-canine service animal users, video footage of guide miniature horses, and more).

rskloot Tue, 03/24/2009 - 06:35

Tags

Publication News and Followups

ADA

Americans With Disabilities Act

I thought that the segment was, despite the title, fairly sympathetic. The scene in the store was presented as just an ordinary thing around there, no one excited about it.

While waiting to be seated at a local resturant, I noticed the fellow in front of me, paying his bill, had a rat on his shoulder. One wonders exactly what services a service rat provides.

Most of the media discussion of this have failed to emphasize just how common non-canine service animals are. This segment seemed no different in that regard. And by focusing on the most extreme case they left the impression that there are only a few people who need these animals.

Well a full-sized horse could only be used in big Wal-Mart stores or Target or Costco or Home Depot.

Trixie is not a full sized horse. The media got that and many other things wrong. SHe is a small pony at 4 feet tall. I am a dwarf. I have two legal disabilities which are epilepsy and blindness. I also have a bone condition that makes it very hard and very painful to walk or stand. SHort of living off pain pills. Which I have done and even been stuck to wheelchairs with constant human support and extremely limited mobility.

The reason I ride trixie is this. The act of sitting on her eliminates my physical pain, she was trained to assist with seizures and guide as a seeing eye dog. I have much more mobility on her and am safer with her help then I ever will be. Oh and yes she was trained to tell me when she has to go number one or two. For traffic, indoor training etc. Pretty much everything we ever will encounter.

I have had her for over 8 years now and she is awesome. I agreed to do the media thing to emphasize the DOJ issue going on but go figure they shoot for the "weird" person on the horse thing which drives me nuts. The thing is even if I was less disabled and had a traditional service animal I'd still be fighting the change of law. The fact is the DOJ is trying to undermine all our rights. Thats about it. I'm angry and wont go down without a fight.

That pony gives me independence period.

P S I invite anyone who wants to talk or learn more to email me at steel silver 2000 at yahoo dot com. Thank.

Producer Seeks Non-Canine Service Animal Users for Documentary Film

rskloot — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:45:24 +0000

Producer Seeks Non-Canine Service Animal Users for Documentary Film

Okay, so Culture Dish is now back from it's short down time forÂ mourningÂ (and finishing my massive pre-tenure dossier, which was due yesterday and looked something like this). Â Lots of posting to catch up on. Â

First, this: Â After reading my recent NYTimes Magazine story on the use of non-canine service animals and the surrounding political turmoil (plus all the follow up here), two producers contacted me about doing a documentary on the subject. I'm not formally involved in the project, but I've talked to them at length, and their idea seems like a good one. Â They're hoping to get in touch with as many people as possible who use non-traditional service animals -- monkeys, miniature horses, birds, kangaroos, you name it. Â As well as those who support or oppose their use. Since many such folks have commented here, the producers asked me to post a letter explaining their project, what they're looking for, and how to contact them. Â See below for details: Â

Dear Readers of Culture Dish,

My name is Matt Woods and I am a documentary filmmaker.Â I read Rebecca's article "Creature Comforts" and became fascinated with the bonds the people featured in the article forged with these unique assistance animals.Â This lead me here to Rebecca's blog where I read many more assistance animal stories as well as voices on both sides of the emerging debate about what should be considered a assistance animal under federal law.Â Rebecca has even been kind enough to discuss the subject over the phone!

My producing partner and I are seeking those of you with assistance animals who might be willing to participate in a documentary film.Â While we are mainly interested in unique assistant animals such as miniature horses, helper monkeys and parrots, that is not the entire focus; we would also be interested in people with guide dogs who have strong opinions either for or against limiting the types of animals that would be legal under the ADA.Â We feel that there hasn't been a long-form documentary film made about service animals and it is fascinating subject that many people would be interested in learning more about especially given the current debate about changing the ADA.

In terms of your commitment, we are simply interested in observing you and your animal going about daily life.Â We would be a fairly unobtrusive camera team of 2 people, with a small camera that wouldn't draw too much attention, and we won't need a large time commitment from you.Â We believe this "verite" style of filmmaking is a style that lets the audience think for themselves rather than being told what to think. Â

If you are interested in participating, please write a brief email describing yourself, your animal and your location to me at:Â woodsyg@gmail.com.Â Thank you for your time!

Best,
Matt Woods
Producer

rskloot Sat, 02/28/2009 - 03:45

Tags

Publication News and Followups

Publication News and Follow Ups

Service Animals

isn't THAT fascinating????

Kangaroos have/are being cosidered as service animals?

While most people think of service dogs, service animals come in many species.

DOJ Withdraws ADA Changes That Would Ban Non-Canine Service Animals

rskloot — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:37:05 +0000

DOJ Withdraws ADA Changes That Would Ban Non-Canine Service Animals

The Department of Justice hasÂ withdrawn its proposed ADA regulations that would have banned the use of assistance monkeys, birds, miniature horses, etc. Â This was in response to a memo from Obama's Chief of Staff directing all agencies to hold off on any new regulations until they could be reviewed and approved by Obama's administration. Â So for now, the ADA definition of service animal remains as it has been since it's original creation, which means it still includes all species of animals. Â One commenter here pointed out that for those concerned about this issue, now would be a good time to express your thoughts to your government. Â Details after the jump on how to do that ...Â

Those interested can contact their government representatives and senators. Also -- perhaps most importantly -- they can contact the Department of Justice. (For those who've asked: The relevant way to reference this issue is by saying you're contacting them about the DOJ's pending ADA regulations that would ban the use of any species other than dogs as service animals. The exact regulation in question is "Title III Regulation 28 CFR Part 36: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities."

rskloot Thu, 02/05/2009 - 05:37

Tags

Publication News and Followups

Publication News and Follow Ups

Good for Obama - I did get the feeling the jerks behind this were trying to sneak it past.

What was the rationale for that regulation against non-canine animal assistance in the first place? Did they think that monkeys and birds represented a security risk or something?

the main person behind this change to allowing only dogs as service animals was started by a man in texas who trains service dogs. conflict of interest much? while texas is my home state, i was appalled at the arrogance and ignorance of the man behind the law changes.

a blind person can use a mini horse for 30 years... while they would have to have multiple dogs in the same amount of time.

i have 2 service dogs who are amazing. but i would consider any animal who could perform the same tasks and alert me to my health issues. (medical alert dogs)

There are actually more then just one person behind this all. Besides a big organization ADI you have those Animal Rights groups that would prefer that nobody have service dogs let alone service animals. But this is the best time to write and be specific to the service animal movement so we do not go backwards in time. One of the reasons behind these proposals being stopped to look into them making sure our civil rights are not being violated because of some organizations or individuals that don't know beans.

That is wonderful news, Sklooty! Let's hope they do the right thing going forward.

New DOJ Head

rskloot — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:46:54 +0000

New DOJ Head

A few hours ago, Joe Biden swore in the new head of the Department of Justice -- the first African American Attorney General in history. Â This is the man who will be deciding, among other things, the future of guide miniature horses and assistance parrots.Â Culture Dish will be watching to see what he does with the proposed revisions to the ADA.

In other news, the new semester just started and like a moron, I didn't write a few posts ahead of time to put up during the first week of classes. Â Still figuring out that whole scheduling-posts thing out. Â Getting on it though.

rskloot Tue, 02/03/2009 - 14:46

Tags

Publication News and Followups

ADA Changes Not Approved Before Obama Innaguration

rskloot — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:23:31 +0000

ADA Changes Not Approved Before Obama Innaguration

As part of my ongoing follow up to my recent New York Times Magazine story about the use of non-canine service animals and the DOJ's efforts to ban them: I've been saying for a few weeks that the currently proposed species ban might not become law if it wasn't approved before Bush left office. And, well, it turns out that the sweeping DOJ changes to the Americans With Disabilities Act were the only regulations under review by the OMB that weren't approved before Obama was inaugurated as president today ...

What this means for the Americans With Disabilities Act and the proposed species ban isn't clear. With the Obama administration will come a new head of the DOJ and everything else. Whether the new administration will reject these Bush administration regulations and come up with ADA changes of its own is an open question at this point. But as it stands, the species ban was not given final approval before today, and therefore isn't in effect yet ... so for the time being, monkeys, miniature horses, parrots, ducks and everything else can legally qualify as service animals.

rskloot Tue, 01/20/2009 - 16:23

Tags

Publication News and Followups

Publication News and Follow Ups

Good news for now. I guess you'll keep an eye on this issue in the future and sound the rallying cry if you need thousands of blog-readers for start calling various phone numbers ;-)

I wonder if Seed would let me have an assistance parrot at work... I'm don't have a disability, but what about *enhancement* animals, that would increase your productivity by providing you with amusing antics all day, thereby increasing pleasurable neurotransmitter release and making work more enjoyable (than it already is ;) )? I'm so pitching this.

I have had a capuchin monkey certified to be my hearing service animals for several years.She was not trained by Helping Hands .I know several other people with cripling diseases that have also trained their own monkeys and have them certified.People are capable of training their own animals.I don't see anything wrong with exotic service animals used exclusively for home use.There has never been one document case of a person owning a monkey contacting a disease from their monkey. All monkey owners would be dead if that were true. my monkey sleeps next to me to hear sounds for me at night and kisses me.I am free of any disease.monkeys have been service animals since the 1800's.I have annual blood work ,TB test and rabies vacinations to ensure my capuchin monkey is proven to be safe among people.Service monkeys are not to entertain people and are not considered pets .They are not for strangers to touch. My capuchin has never attacked anyone in the 12 years I have owned her.I believe there is a chance any animal can bite or scratch if provoked.Dogs carry diseases and have been known to maul little children, why are they the only animal being considered a service animal. The disabled struggle enough the way it is. These animals provide service so we can live a more independent life.here are those of us with disablities to get the $30,000 for a service dog? It doesn't seem like our government care abou us only about money.

Dear Arikia, it is people like you who have ruined it for those of us who actually need our service animal to help us live an independent life.How dare you insult those with disbilities with your sarcastic comment. God forbid you should ever lose the use of you legs, eyes,or hearing and had no one to help you.You think there would be all kind of organizations out there for us but there is not.These animals do a real service for us and provide an uncondtional love that is hard to find in humans.If you need something to enhance your success at work go to a seminar or get more eduacation. The disabled don't have that option.

capuchin monkeys are used by helping hands because there aren't many diseases that can be transmitted between either. While other species of monkeys can carry, contract, and transmit diseases. Plus not so many with monkeys are as thorough as you with health checks. I think the monkey that has fueled excluding monkeys is the one that has been widely covered named richard. He is an emotional support monkey not a service animal and his human was treating him like a child, allowing him to eat at the table in a restaurant. No service animal should be eating in a restaurant let alone off the table.

Now as for monkeys as service animals. Helping Hands places them as home service animals. Therefore monkeys are not affected by the ADA which refers to public access outside the home. The monkeys fall under the fair housing act. So even if this passes monkeys will still be allowed to assist their humans at home.

As for dogs mauling little children, how many legitimate service dogs have you known that have mauled people. That is like comparing how many monkey bites per year comparing the number to that amount of monkeys there are. Service dogs are the least likely to bite or maul little children. All my service dogs have been highly tolerant of children allowing them to crawl all over them, pull their ears, and even try to poke their eyes out (ppl please watch your children in public). What would happen if a child were to reach out from behind and touch your monkey or even grab them?

Monkeys do bite. I knew someone who fostered for helping hands and she and other reported that the monkeys do bite which is why their teeth are pulled before placement. Also most people do not have the experience or knowledge to properly train a monkey. Monkeys are still wild animals even when raised in captivity. They are not domesticated unlike cats, dogs, and many farm animals. Any wild animal when not trained or handled right can be dangerous raised in captivity or not. Still wild animal are just that wild, even trained wild animals can be unpredictable at time. Ask the trainer who was mauled by a trained bear raised in captivity and all the others who though a pet large feline like a lion or tiger was a good idea. BTW right now as the regulations stand a person could bring a large wild predator or any wild animal for that matter into stores stating it is a service animal. I don't think I'd like to run across a service skunk especially not in a plane. This is an example of how crazy it has gotten. People are claiming lizards and snakes as service animals when the definition states they much be trained.

I think if they are to allow other species, they should be certified meaning given a test to prove they are safe in public along with behaving properly and can demonstate that they are trained to mitigate the disability. This will keep the untrained and dangerous wild animals out.

What is the difference between dogs and other species? Dogs are hard wired to rely on people and look to them for guidance. There was a study shown on tv where they were using apes and found that they didn't pick up on gestures from people and one of the researchers stated their dog could probably do that. Sure enough the dog was able to follow gestures to go directly to the cup with the food treat under it (both smelled like treats). They have done it with a puppy. They they brought it another step and told a dog to leave a treat on the floor while the human looked straight ahead. The human then closed her eyes. While the eyes were open, the dog did not go for the treat but when they closed the dog took the treat. This showed that dogs do something that very few species do, look at and interpret our faces. They then took and dog and a wolf and a crate with meat inside. They put a rope on the meat and let each pull it out via the rope, both were able. Then they secured the rope. The wolf tried to get it and when it couldn't started trying even harder despite not succeeding while the dog tried to figure it out and when it was unable to looked to the human for help. This is why dogs are so well suited for service animals than any other breed. They look to people for guidance and rely on us, generally speaking domestic dogs cannot live without people while cats usually are able to survive on their own. Dogs have been living with and working for people for thousands of years. They are truely domesticated. They understand human behavior.

for an article google: dogs and apes
The second article I found and read was: Digg - Dogs Can Read Human Facial Expressions - Wolves and Apes Cannot

Please excuse my typing, word, and grammatic mistakes, it was late when I typed it and didn't proof read.

Doreen,

WELL SAID! Thank you.

DOJ's Proposed Ban of Non-canine Service Animals Is Bad News for Disabled Muslims

rskloot — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:35:14 +0000

DOJ's Proposed Ban of Non-canine Service Animals Is Bad News for Disabled Muslims

A quick post as part of my ongoing follow up to my recent New York Times Magazine story about the use of non-canine service animals and the DOJ's efforts to ban them: There's an interesting discussion going on about how limiting service animal species also limits religious freedom ...

In the interesting comments thread of this blog post, a woman named Mona Ramouni explains that she is currently in the process of having a miniature horse trained as her guide because her religious faith makes it so she can't use a guide dog. Here's an excerpt of her comments:

"I am a Muslim, and we believe that a dog's saliva is unclean. If you
come into contact with a dog's saliva, you have to wash whatever came
into contact with the saliva seven times before it's considered "clean"
again. So, I could get a dog, but I'd have a lot of washing to do. Also, since I have many friends who are Muslims, I know that they
wouldn't come over anymore if there was a dog in the house. And you can
be sure I wouldn't be invited over, either!

"As if that weren't enough, I live with my parents and will do so until
I marry, which is common in Muslim culture and society. My mother
wouldn't allow a dog in the house and is only tolerating Cali [the guide miniature horse] because
she won't be inside often.

"... my reasons for exploring the possibility of a guide horse are quite
different from those of all the other guide horse users I know about.
I'm hoping that the DOJ decides to keep guide horses in the service
animal definition, as one of my goals is to let the Muslim community
know that a guide horse is an option ... I wonder how many of the people who
proposed these amendments are blind or have some other disability."

I'm surprised this issue wasn't raised during the DOJ hearings as part of the discussion of whether a species ban was appropriate, and who it would negatively impact. It applies to some Orthodox Jews as well, who interpret the Talmud as forbidding dog ownership (though that is a subject of debate).

rskloot Sat, 01/17/2009 - 09:35

Tags

Publication News and Followups

Publication News and Follow Ups

religion

"I am a Muslim, and we believe that a dog's saliva is unclean. If you come into contact with a dog's saliva, you have to wash whatever came into contact with the saliva seven times before it's considered "clean" again.

Oooow, Woo. The discussion wasn't complicated enough, let's introduce the supernatural. A valid consideration on your part, Skloot, but, please, Ms. Ramouni, if this is how your friends and family are going to treat you because of a dog, it's not the dog that needs doing away with.

I hate dog-spit, but not enough to blunder about without guidance if I was blind.

This moderated post thing isn't working so well for me.

The free-for-all-internet-Wild-West-post-comments-on-your-blog seems to be OK so far, why did you restrict?

My impression: the whole point here is to go round and round after the post. Yah, there's crap, but you've gotten mostly teh good poop.

Do Typepad if you must.

@Kamaka: I actually didn't mean to turn on the MT registration ... was tinkering around with the settings trying to figure out the options for dealing with spam. It's off now. Depending on how things go in the future I may do some kind of site registration, but hopefully that won't be necessary.

[offensive and discriminatory comment deleted]

Leaving aside the religious issue and any (real or implied) criticism of its validity:

There's a perfectly good, purely physiological reason not to impose a dogs-only regulation. What if (Ceiling Cat forbid) Malia Obama needed a guide animal? We all know she loves dogs, but she's also allergic to them. Put simply, dog-allergic people need other options.

To impose a dogs-only restriction on account of some people's fussiness is just plain WRONG. People who are too fussy and intolerant to put up with service animals can bleeping take themselves elsewhere or stay home and stop interfering with the independence those animals give to so many people. I sincerely hope the DOJ wakes up and smells its own bull$#!+ before thousands of people with disabilities end up falling on their faces in it.

You really can't believe a thing Muslims say.

All the religionists think, say and do irrational stuff. The muslims hardly need singling out.

Why shouldn't be able to take a ferret (in a cage) on a city bus, even if it's not a service animal? In Poland I frequently have transported my ferret on inter-city trains.

hmmmm the belief that dog saliva is unclean is not based on fact. human saliva will always infect you if you are bitten but not a dog bite. their saliva is actually cleaner than humans and can heal a cut.

cats on the other hand have some nasty germs in their mouths. so beliefs really should be based on fact, not just made up.

I am just curious if this was written in the Koran? I thought it was only pigs that they thought was unclean. What happens if the miniature horse licks her....is it cleaner than the dog?

Service Animals on the Radio, a Horse Fetching a Beer, Plus Blog Maintenance Downtime

rskloot — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:26:56 +0000

Service Animals on the Radio, a Horse Fetching a Beer, Plus Blog Maintenance Downtime

In a display of stunningly bad timing given all the comments people have been posting here in recent days, the entire ScienceBlogs network will be down from 1pm today until sometime Saturday (or whenever they're done) for a system upgrade. I won't be able to post, and readers won't be able to comment, until the system is back online (alas). If there's some pressing breaking news while this network is down, I'll post it on my old blog here. But I doubt that will happen. Please check back in a day or so to post your comments or, if you simply can't wait, you can email them to me via the address on my "contact" page.

In the meantime, there's plenty of reading here related to my recent New York Times Magazine story, Creature Comforts, including several updates with photos and video footage.

Here are links to a few Public Radio interviews I did this week: Here and Now on the service animal species ban. Word of Mouth on the latest developments (mac users listen here). And Day to Day on the wide range of animals being used to help the disabled.

And for all those who wonder if it's really possible to train a horse to ride in a car, or fetch a beer from the refrigerator, I give you this very strange video. Of all the bizarre and somewhat disturbing things in it, oddly, the horse eating a hamburger may be the creepiest for me (um, horse eating cow???). Overall: Seriously weird.

rskloot Fri, 01/09/2009 - 03:26

Tags

Publication News and Followups

Publication News and Follow Ups

Aargh...I lost 9 I.Q. points watching that video.

Ann Althouse points to this article on the Japanese use of robotic therapeutic animals.

We know you are busy busy, and the upgrade broke the thread...

My companion-vulture says this thread is not dead.

I find drinking a beer after it's been in a horse's mouth far more disturbing than a horse eating a hamburger - he probably like the bread and lettuce part more than the beef.

DOJ's Proposal and Rationale for Allowing Psychiatric Service Animals (dogs only)

rskloot — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:54:30 +0000

DOJ's Proposal and Rationale for Allowing Psychiatric Service Animals (dogs only)

As part of ongoing follow up on my story in this week's New York Times Magazine, I've been posting about a Department of Justice document leaked to me with the wording of their proposal to ban all non-canine service animals. Yesterday I posted the DOJ's rationale behind the species ban. I've since gotten several emails asking whether the leaked DOJ documents contained language banning the use of psychiatric service animals as well. It doesn't. Here, below the jump, is the DOJ's new proposed service animal definition:

"The Department's final rule defines "service animal" as "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, cannot be service animals. Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to, guiding individuals who are blind or have low vision, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, providing minimal, non-violent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a seizure, retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and assisting individuals with navigation. Emotional support, comfort, companionship, or therapeutic benefits; the promotion of emotional well-being; and the crime deterrent effects of an animal's mere presence do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition."

Below, for those interested, are details from the document explaining the DOJ's rationale regarding psychiatric vs. comfort animals:

"The Department has adopted regulatory text in Â§ 36.104 to formalize its position on emotional support or comfort animals, which states that "[e]motional support, comfort, companionship, or therapeutic benefits; the promotion of emotional well-being; and the crime deterrent effects of an animal's mere presence do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition." The Department notes however, that the exclusion of emotional support animals from coverage in the final rule does not mean that individuals with psychiatric or mental disabilities cannot use service animals that meet the regulatory definition. The Department has proposed specific regulatory text in Â§ 36.104 to make this clear: "The term service animal includes individually trained animals that do work or perform tasks for the benefit of individuals with disabilities, including psychiatric and mental disabilities." This language simply clarifies the Department's longstanding position.

Recognition of psychiatric service animals, but not "comfort animals". The final rule contains additional text in Â§ 36.104 to emphasize the Department's longstanding position that emotional support animals are not included in the definition of "service animal." This text provides that "[e]motional support, comfort, companionship, or therapeutic benefits; the promotion of emotional well-being; and the crime deterrent effects of an animal's mere presence do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition."

Many advocacy organizations expressed concern and disagreed with the exclusion of comfort and emotional support animals. Others have been more specific, stating that individuals with disabilities may need their emotional support animals in order to have equal access. Some commenters noted that individuals with disabilities use animals that have not been trained to perform tasks directly related to their disability. These animals do not qualify as service animals under the final rule. These are emotional support or comfort animals.

Commenters asserted that excluding categories such as "comfort" and "emotional support" animals recognized by Acts such as the Fair Housing Act or Air Carrier Access Act is confusing and burdensome. Other commenters noted that emotional support and comfort animals perform an important function, asserting that animal companionship helps individuals who experience depression resulting from multiple sclerosis.

Other commenters expressing opposition to the exclusion of individually trained "comfort" or "emotional support" animals, asserted that the ability to self-soothe or de-escalate and control emotion is "work" that benefits the individual with the disability. They argue that veterans with agoraphobia and individuals with high levels of anxiety are able to go about in the world because they have an emotional support animal.

Some commenters explained the benefits emotional support animals provide including, emotional support, comfort, therapy, companionship, therapeutic benefits, and the promotion of emotional well-being. They contended that without the presence of an emotional support animal in their lives, they would be disadvantaged and unable to participate in society. These commenters were concerned that excluding this category of animals will lead to discrimination against, and the excessive questioning of, individuals with non-visible or non-apparent disabilities. Others explained that therapy or comfort animals enable them to live independently in the community setting, by alleviating panic or anxiety disorders by helping them to remain calm and unafraid.

Commenters contended that the proposed service animal provision leaves unaddressed the issue of how a covered facility (such as a restaurant) can distinguish between a psychiatric service animal, which is covered under the final rule, and a comfort animal, which is not. The Department has provided guidance on this issue, making clear that inquiries about whether an animal is a service animal must focus on the work or tasks that the animal is trained to perform. Such inquiries are limited to eliciting the information necessary to make a decision, without requiring disclosure of confidential disability-related information that a restaurant or other place of public accommodation does not need.

Some commenters suggested that a public accommodation should be allowed to require current documentation, no more than one year old, on letterhead from a mental health professional stating: (1) that the individual seeking to use the animal has a mental health-related disability; (2) that having the animal accompany the individual is necessary to the individual's mental health or treatment or to assist the person otherwise; and (3) that the person providing the assessment of the individual is a licensed mental health professional and the individual seeking to use the animal is under that individual's professional care. The commenter asserted that this will prevent abuse and ensure that individuals with legitimate needs for emotional support animals may use them. This proposal would treat persons with psychiatric, intellectual, and other mental disabilities less favorably than persons with physical and sensory disabilities. It also would require persons with disabilities to obtain medical documentation and carry it with them any time they seek to engage in ordinary activities of daily life in their communities--something individuals without disabilities have not been required to do. The Department believes that a documentation requirement of this kind is unnecessary, burdensome, and contrary to the spirit, intent, and mandates of the ADA.

Commenters asserted the view that if an animal's "mere presence" legitimately provides such benefits to an individual with a disability and those benefits are necessary to provide equal opportunity given the facts of the particular disability, then such an animal should qualify as a "service animal," if the accommodation would be reasonable. Commenters noted that the focus should be on the nature of a person's disability, the difficulties the disability may impose and whether the requested accommodation would address legitimately those difficulties, not by evaluating the animal involved. The commenter noted the ruling requiring the reasonable accommodation of a companion animal under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act in Auburn Woods Homeowner Ass'n v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission, 18 Ca. Rptr. 3d 669, 682 (Ct. App. 2004), noted that "it was the innate qualities of a dog, in particular a dog's friendliness and ability to interact with humans, that made it therapeutic here." While the Department understands that this approach has benefitted many individuals in residential settings under the Fair Housing Act and analogous state law provisions where the presence of animals poses fewer health and safety issues, the presence of such animals is simply not appropriate in the context of public accommodations such as restaurants, hospitals, hotels, retail establishments, and assembly areas.

An advocacy group that works with service women who have been raped in the military and supports the use of emotional support dogs, noted that comfort dogs have changed the lives of these women to the extent that they now feel safe enough to step outside their homes. Many commenters advocated generally for the recognition under the ADA of animals that provide varying types of emotional support for persons with disabilities who have served in the military. They assert that a significant number of service members returning from active combat duty have adjustment difficulties due to combat, rape or other traumatic experiences while on active duty. Commenters noted that some current or former members of the military service have been prescribed animals that perform these functions for conditions such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Commenters requested that the Department carve out an exception that permits current or former members of the military to use emotional support animals. The Department recognizes that many current and former members of the military have disabilities as a result of service-related injuries that may require emotional support and that such individuals can benefit from the use of an emotional support animal and could use such animal in their home under the Fair Housing Act. However, having weighed carefully the issues, the Department believes that its final title III regulation must address appropriately the balance of issues and concerns of both the individual with a disability and the public accommodation. The Department also notes that nothing in this part prohibits a public accommodation from allowing current or former military members or anyone else with disabilities to utilize emotional support animals if it wants to do so.

Under the Department's previous regulatory framework, some individuals and entities assumed that the requirement that service animals must be individually trained to do work or perform tasks excluded all individuals with mental disabilities from having service animals. Others assumed that any person with a psychiatric condition whose pet provided comfort to them was covered by the 1991 regulation. The Department reiterates that psychiatric service animals that are trained to do work or perform a task (e.g., reminding its owner to take medicine) for individuals whose disability is covered by the ADA are protected by the Department's present regulatory approach. Psychiatric service animals can be trained to perform a variety of tasks that assist individuals with disabilities to detect the onset of psychiatric episodes and ameliorate their effects. Tasks performed by psychiatric service animals may include reminding the handler to take medicine; providing safety checks or room searches for persons with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; interrupting self-mutilation; and removing disoriented individuals from dangerous situations.

The difference between an emotional support animal and a psychiatric service animal is the work or tasks that the animal performs. Traditionally, service dogs worked as guides for individuals who were blind or had low vision. Since the original regulation was promulgated, service animals have been trained to assist individuals with many different types of disabilities. In some cases, individuals who have impairments that do not qualify as a disability under the ADA have concluded mistakenly that the regulation gives them the right to use service animals.

The Department has adopted regulatory text in Â§ 36.104 to formalize its position on emotional support or comfort animals, which states that "[e]motional support, comfort, companionship, or therapeutic benefits; the promotion of emotional well-being; and the crime deterrent effects of an animal's mere presence do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition." The Department notes however, that the exclusion of emotional support animals from coverage in the final rule does not mean that individuals with psychiatric or mental disabilities cannot use service animals that meet the regulatory definition. The Department has proposed specific regulatory text in Â§ 36.104 to make this clear: "The term service animal includes individually trained animals that do work or perform tasks for the benefit of individuals with disabilities, including psychiatric and mental disabilities." This language simply clarifies the Department's longstanding position.

The Department's position is based on the fact that the title II and title III regulations govern a wider range of public settings than the housing and transportation settings where the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations allow emotional support or comfort animals. The Department recognizes that there are situations not governed by the title II and title III regulations, particularly in the context of residential settings and transportation, where there may be compelling reasons to permit the use of animals whose presence provides emotional support to a person with a disability. Accordingly, other federal agency regulations, case law, and possibly state or local laws governing those situations may provide appropriately for increased access for animals other than service animals. Public officials, housing providers, and others who make decisions relating to animals in residential and transportation settings should consult the federal, state, and local laws that apply in those areas.

rskloot Thu, 01/08/2009 - 14:54

Tags

animals

Assistance Creatures

Disability Rights

Publication News and Followups

Policy

Publication News and Follow Ups

DoJ's Rationale Behind Banning Non-Canine Service Animals

rskloot — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:26:46 +0000

DoJ's Rationale Behind Banning Non-Canine Service Animals

Yesterday, as part of ongoing follow up on my story in this week's New York Times Magazine, I posted about a Department of Justice document leaked to me with the wording of their proposal to ban all non-canine service animals. Below the jump, for those interested, I've pasted an excerpt from that proposal, which is not yet public. It outlines the arguments the DOJ heard for and against the species ban during this summer's public hearings, plus the DOJ's responses, and its final ruling on the issue.

Bottom line:

"The Department agrees with commenters' views that limiting the number and types of species recognized as service animals will provide greater predictability for public accommodations as well as added assurance of access for individuals with disabilities who use dogs as service animals.

More proposal details below:

"Species limitations ... The Department received many comments from individuals and organizations recommending species limitations. Several of these commenters asserted that limiting the number of allowable species would help stop erosion of the public's trust, which has resulted in reduced access for many individuals with disabilities who use trained service animals that adhere to high behavioral standards. Several commenters suggested that other species would be acceptable if those animals could meet nationally recognized behavioral standards for trained service dogs. Other commenters asserted that certain species of animals (e.g., reptiles) cannot be trained to do work or perform tasks, so these animals would not be covered.
In the [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking], the Department used the term "common domestic animal" in the service animal definition and defined it to exclude reptiles, rabbits, farm animals (including horses, miniature horses, ponies, pigs, or goats), ferrets, amphibians, and rodents. However, the term "common domestic animal" is difficult to define with precision due to the increase in the number of domesticated species. Also, several state and local laws define a "domestic" animal as an animal that is not wild. As a consequence, the Department has decided to limit title III's coverage of service animals to dogs, which are the most common service animals used by individuals with disabilities.

The Department is compelled to take into account the practical considerations of certain animals and to contemplate their suitability in a variety of public contexts, such as restaurants, grocery stores, hospitals, and performing arts venues, as well as suitability for urban environments. The Department agrees with commenters' views that limiting the number and types of species recognized as service animals will provide greater predictability for public accommodations as well as added assurance of access for individuals with disabilities who use dogs as service animals.

Wild animals, monkeys, and other non-human primates. Numerous business entities endorsed a narrow definition of acceptable service animal species, and asserted that there are certain animals (e.g., reptiles) that cannot be trained to do work or perform tasks. Other commenters suggested that the Department should identify excluded animals, such as birds and llamas, in the final rule. Although one commenter noted that wild animals bred in captivity should be permitted to be service animals, the Department has decided to make clear that all wild animals, whether born or bred in captivity or in the wild, are eliminated from coverage as service animals. The Department believes that this approach reduces risks to health or safety attendant with wild animals. Some animals, such as certain nonhuman primates including certain monkeys, pose a direct threat; their behavior can be unpredictably aggressive and violent without notice or provocation. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) issued a position statement advising against the use of monkeys as service animals, stating that "[t]he AVMA does not support the use of nonhuman primates as assistance animals because of animal welfare concerns, and the potential for serious injury and zoonotic [animal to human disease transmission] risks." See AVMA position statement, Nonhuman Primates as Assistance Animals (2005), available at http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/nonhuman_primates.asp.

An organization that trains capuchin monkeys to provide in-home services to individuals with paraplegia and quadriplegia was in substantial agreement with the AVMA's views but requested a limited recognition in the service animal definition for the capuchin monkeys it trains to provide assistance for persons with disabilities. The organization commented that its trained capuchin monkeys undergo scrupulous veterinary examinations to ensure that the animal poses no health risks, and are used by individuals with disabilities exclusively in their homes. The organization acknowledged that the capuchin monkeys it trains are not suitable necessarily for use in a place of public accommodation but noted that the monkeys may need to be used in circumstances that implicate title III coverage, e.g., in the event the owner or handler had to leave home due to an emergency, to visit a veterinarian, or for the initial delivery of the monkey to the individual with a disability.

This commenter argued that including capuchin monkeys under the service animal umbrella would make it easier for individuals with disabilities to obtain reasonable modifications of state and local licencing, health, and safety laws that would permit the use of these monkeys. The organization argued that this limited modification to the service animal definition was warranted in view of the services these monkeys perform, which enable many individuals with paraplegia and quadriplegia to live and function with increased independence.

The Department has considered the potential risks associated with the use of nonhuman primates as service animals in places of public accommodations as well as the information provided to the Department about the benefits that trained capuchin monkeys provide to certain individuals with disabilities and has determined that nonhuman primates, including monkeys, will not be recognized as service animals for purposes of this rule. However, state and local governments may be required to accommodate home use of such monkeys by individuals with disabilities as discussed in connection with Â§ 35.136(a) of the final rule for title II.

Having considered all of the comments about which species should qualify as service animals under the ADA, the Department has decided to limit acceptable species to dogs."

Update: With the change in administration, these proposed changes have been pulled from the approval process for further review.

rskloot Wed, 01/07/2009 - 16:26

Tags

Publication News and Followups

Publication News and Follow Ups

This is discouraging and actually quite annoying. Domestic is a term that connotes a great deal more than simply being tame. A raccoon that has been tamed and lives in your house is still a wild animal. The process of domestication occurs over many generations where specific traits in an animal are bred for that make them more suitable to their use by people. A domestic sheep is a very different animal from a wild one.

Horses are among the oldest of the domestic animals so to lump them with wild animals and to exclude them for the reasons cited is actually just a sign of gross ignorance. Through their long association with people they have lived just as closely with humans as dogs have. When you stop to think about it the dog was historically just another farm animal, not a household pet. When dogs were first being used as guide dogs, it was not yet that common for dogs to live in houses as pets. They were kept outside to guard the livestock and many people wondered if they could really be kept successfully in urban areas.

[Skloot comment: Alexandra Kurland, the writer of this comment, is featured in my story]

While I certainly agree that reptiles and MOST farm animals aren't service animals, like I mentioned before a mini horse is so small it's basically useless as livestock, and therefore a pet, and they demonstrably can be trained.

I honestly think that meeting regs that define what a service animal is would be far more appropriate than limiting species. Just because a dog is a domestic species should not qualify it to be a service animal. There are plenty of dogs that would be unsuited in behavior, temperament and ability to be a service animal. Appropriate behavior depends on serious, life long training that most service animals do not receive once they are placed.

I had never heard of a seeing-eye horse till I read about them on this blog.

Knowing dogs as well as I do and having had a few days to think it through, they must be FAR superior to dogs as service animals.

And the guy with the parrot, why wouldn't people want to co-operate with that? If the bird keeps him out of trouble, more power to them both.

Instead of a bureaucratic pronouncement, a licensing scheme is in order, with stiff penalties for pretenders.

My wife is one of the few people in this country who owns a miniature horse trained as a guide. My wife is totally blind and totally deaf in the right ear. She cannot travel independantly without a guide animal. The reason why she chose the horse is due to lifespan: 30 - 40 years. The horse is completely house trained, and actually sleeps in the house (by her own choice - she has full access inside and out at all times she is at home) just as a dog does. She is quite litterally a dog in horse's clothing. We do not have a farm, and Confetti is the only horse we own, and the only horse we have EVER owned. My wife has had 2 wonderful dogs, but it broke her heart when they died, and she felt she couldn't go through that again. When her last dog was nearing the end of its working life, my wife told me this was it - no more guide dogs. Six months later we found out about mini horses being trained as guides, we checked it out and she decided this was the alternative she had been praying for. Six years later, her wonderful guide will have to be replaced, not because the guide is not working out or is dying, but because Our Wonderful Government has just taken away her liberty - she can't travel alone without a guide - and her happiness - she won't be happy forced to get another dog in order to travel alone -- every ten years or possibly less -- for the rest of her life.

I do not want to be the one to tell her about this. It is going to devastate her!

Good old U.S.A. --- Legislate everything until no one has any rights at all! Of course we all know what is at the base of this deep dark hole we find ourselves in -- MONEY -- THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL! Comments by BUSINESSES have MORE WEIGHT than those of the disabled, because BUSINESSES HAVE DEEP POCKETS and the disabled can barely SCRATCH OUT A LIVING, never mind provide "gifts" to politicians and bureaucrats.

What a country.

Chris Spencer

I agree with Mr. Spencer. I have a wonderful service dog named Jet, but because we are so close, I live in fear of the day when he leaves me. I would not give him up, but if I had been told when I got him that I might have had the option of a companion that would live twice as long, I may well have chosen to try a pony. Also, Jet has all of the aid dog certs, and I just can't imagine trying to have done all of that training myself. I continue his training as our relationship grows. I firmly believe that every animal classified as a service animal should have this level of training. Every single one represents the whole service animal community, at home or abroad.

Kamika,

I just read your post and one thing that needs to be made very clear - "Seeing Eye" is a trademark owned by The Seeing Eye in New Jersey, the oldest organization for training GUIDE DOGS for the blind. The term "Seeing Eye Dog" can only be used while referencing a GUIDE DOG that has been trained and graduated THEIR training program.

I understand why the name "SEEING EYE " seems right, just as calling "[whatever brand] Tissues" "Kleenex" is an everyday occurrence for the exact same reason - Kleenex" was the first, so no matter who makes the tissues, its a "Kleenex". What I am getting at is that The Seeing Eye is very proud of their name and reputation, and they only train DOGS, therefore there is no such thing as a "Seeing Eye Horse". All dogs trained at other schools to guide the blind are called Guide Dogs or Dog Guides, and also have the prefix for the school where they were trained, so in this same train of thought, miniature horses trained to guide the blind should be referred to as "Guide Horse" or "Horse Guide" in conversation and in print.

Sorry for the long dissertation, but I have great respect for The Seeing Eye, and I do not want them to take the credit or the blame for an animal whose training they had nothing to do with other than the fact that they did it first and were one of the inspirations to other trainers of animals for the blind.

Chris Spencer

What affects the whole thing is just how new it all is. We are learning things about animal behavior and how animals communicate with each other. The role of pheromones in communications is still poorly known, the subject of myths, and even outright denial. We are in the process of adjusting to our new knowledge, and that leads to problems.

Centuries from now guide horses and therapy baboons will be every day encounters, but for now they are unusual and the subject of misunderstanding. Remaining cool, collected, and poised would do us all a lot more good than getting all bothered and out of sorts.

I need a STAKE to drive through the heart (if any) of the person or persons who decided that only a dog can be a service animal.

Maybe I'll create a mask and a sign that I can put on Confetti that says "German Shepherd - Please don't touch me - I bite"

Chris

On its face, the rule seems absurd. But the money quote is "Numerous business entities endorsed a narrow definition of acceptable service animal species," which makes the purpose clear: it's just standard Bush administration style deregulation, minimizing the obligations on business, ignoring any other impact.

Hopefully Obama will reverse this.

@ Chris Spencer

"Seeing-eye" point taken.

You do not say exactly why your wife's guide horse has to be replaced. I would like to know.

And yes, money is involved, but the bottom line is discrimination. I find it outrageous that other people think it's o.k. to decide for the handicapped what critters are allowed and disallowed to be their service animals. Like the angry guy with the parrot; yes, it's a singular situation, but it works, dammit, leave the man be.

I relate to your wife's feelings. When the last dog I owned died, I swore off owning dogs for the same reason. And I'm convinced the horse is better suited to be a guide animal than a dog. Horses are herd animals, dogs/wolves live in packs, the interactive dynamics of these creatures are completely different.

"But I don't want no horse in my store."

I call irrational discrimination.

If I can make a suggestion. As I understand it, this regulation only says that dogs are service animals that businesses must accept by law. I don't think there is anything that says a business cannot accept a horse as a guide animal, just that they can't be sued under the ADA if they do not.

Maybe they can't be sued if they don't accept a horse as a guide animal, but the rest of us sure can boycott that store, which I would do in a heart beat. If a store doesn't allow horses as service animals, that store will not get my business. If the town the store is in doesn't allow it, the business will have to move before they will get my business.

Maybe someone who is knowledgeable in such things could design a nice logo that progressive store owners could put up that indicates they accept all trained domesticated service animals.

Chains that do internet business too could mandate that in their retail outlets so people who buy stuff by internet could support those progressive businesses.

I agree about horses. They make much more sense as guide animals. They are herbivores, not carnivores. They have excellent vision, with a near 360 degree field of vision. They are very careful where they step and won't walk where they might break a leg.

I have to agree, and I'd like to add one more question: what about the people who cannot have dogs? What about handicapped people who are allergic to dogs? This would remove any possibility for them to have a guide animal, period, because it would be limiting them to something they already cannot have.

Obviously whoever thought this one up has little concern for the human beings it would affect.

"I don't think there is anything that says a business cannot accept a horse as a guide animal, just that they can't be sued under the ADA if they do not."

You're definitely on the right track, but health department rules come into play here, as well as city regulations that disallow farm animals. Really, any sensible health department is going to balk at horses and monkeys in the grocery.

ADA supercedes these local regulations. That's why this status restriction matters.

"Obviously whoever thought this one up has little concern for the human beings it would affect."

Yah, welcome to the land of the free. Unless you're a blind black lesbian atheist. Then maybe not so free.

I know this is a nitpick, but this definition (copied below) would seems to neither include nor include a few species, e.g. cats or birds. (And being really nitpicky fish and a many others too!) In some ways this re-enforces the arbitrary nature of this decision.

In the [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking], the Department used the term "common domestic animal" in the service animal definition and defined it to exclude reptiles, rabbits, farm animals (including horses, miniature horses, ponies, pigs, or goats), ferrets, amphibians, and rodents. However, the term "common domestic animal" is difficult to define with precision due to the increase in the number of domesticated species. Also, several state and local laws define a "domestic" animal as an animal that is not wild. As a consequence, the Department has decided to limit title III's coverage of service animals to dogs, which are the most common service animals used by individuals with disabilities.

http://www.guidehorseno.com/

There are negatives to guide horses. First they are prey animals meaning the can spook like any other horse. They are very strong id the do spook. They lack the ability to perform intelligent disobedience in new situations. They have trouble going down stairs as they are not build for it. They must live in a country setting and cannot hold it for too long (i think the guide horse org says 3 hours) and the excriment is substantially more. Another issue is breeding these horses to be so small results in genetic health issues, they aren't as healthy as full sized horses. Horses also are more likely have trouble adapting to new situations or experiences. They must stand and should not lay down long to prevent colic. Therefore cannot go under tables and lay down during meals. Also if you have to move to the city or to a place without much of a yard, you must give up your guide horse. So what is the point of having 25yrs if you are trapped to short outings and must live only in certain places in the country. What happens if a person loses their home and must move to an apartment or assisted living? They must give up their guide horse whereas a guide dog would be able to go along with them and adapt well. I don't think I'd like to be the one holding the harness when a large loose dog comes charging at the guide horse which is the same size or smaller than the dog. The horses instinct is to run away from the predator. I do think the risk of a pet dog attacking a guide horse is higher than one biting a guide dog.

The Department of Justice is clearly not bothering with facts here:

Some animals, such as certain nonhuman primates including certain monkeys, pose a direct threat; their behavior can be unpredictably aggressive and violent without notice or provocation.

Yet according to the CDC, dogs, not monkeys, killed about 300 people in the U.S. in the last 30 years. They estimate that in one year alone 4.7 million people were bit by dogs, 800,000 of which required medical attention. If the DoJ's reasoning is that they need to play it safe with service animals, this seems like excellent rational for banning dogs as service animals, not exclusively promoting them. I would assume that a properly-trained guide dog is quite safe, but I would need some actual statistics before jumping to the conclusion that a well-trained animal of any species isn't equally as harmless.

@Kat:

Another issue is breeding these horses to be so small results in genetic health issues, they aren't as healthy as full sized horses.

I assume you're also opposed to the numerous dog breeds that have even more varied health problems because of selective breeding and inbreeding.

The horses instinct is to run away from the predator.

And the dog's instinct is likely to be to run or fight, neither of which is acceptable in a service animal. That's what the intensive training is for, regardless of species.

There are many reasons why someone can't have or wouldn't want a dog as a guide animal and I fail to see why, if the animal is properly trained and the person has legitimate need, any species shouldn't be allowed the general legal protection service animals are given.

Test post

It appears the DOJ has MISINTERPRETED the intent of the Congress. Public Law 110-325 which was signed into law by President Bush on September 26, 2008 specifically states its intent is to BROADEN the protections of the ADA due to decisions of the Supreme Court decisions of which LIMITED the protections.

To read the entire law go to http://catalog.gpo.gov and search on "americans with disabilities act" (include the quotes in the search terms to limit the returned documents) and read the public law.

This is the reason why the DOJ backed off on the service animals issue and why their "updated" rules are not yet available. To read the current ada rules, go to ada.gov and click on the link in the right column "Title III Regulations". Somehow I don't think there are going to be many changes in it.

Chris

"Yet according to the CDC, dogs, not monkeys, killed about 300 people in the U.S. in the last 30 years." == which is about 10/year. Given the MILLIONS of dogs (vice monkeys) owned by people and the often haphazard methods of training (and often abuse), that's a VERY low number. More people are killed by bees. Horses, by the way, are a well known hazard as they can both kick and bite.
The DOJ decision is very disappointing, but the fact is that unfortunately, there were people who abused the ADA claiming entrance for animals whose "service" was questionable at best. And requiring "accomodations" for a variety of animals makes things problematic -- does one have bathroom stalls big enough to accomodate the shetland sized "service" horse (the use of minatures may have been the norm, but it wasn't previously required to use minatures)? Keep the building warm enough to accomodate the lizard or the monkey? Dogs have been sharing our lives for at least 15,000 years and most likely 10x that long. They are, for most people, an understood quantity. And dogs don't generally require "special" accomodations -- they've proven an ability to live with us in a vast array of environments. It may be "money" that drives this, but it's also unreasonable to expect accomodations to cover "everything" and for businesses to continually pick up the tab for it. At some point a compromise between the welfare of others and that of the individual has to be made. If this goes through, hopefully at some point, other animals will be added -- or they'll figure out how to lengthen dog's lives to 20 or so.

I agree with Chris that the DOJ is misinterpreting the intent of Congress in redefining "service animal" to be more restrictive - but they've had a lot of help from service dog organizations. For some reason, many of these groups have decided to be very vocal about introducing these restrictions. The stated reasons for this viewpoint as best as I can determine is to prevent the erosion of public trust by persons who take their (perhaps poorly trained) pets out in public and "pass them off" as service dogs. I believe that there are instances where this happens. However, educating businesses about appropriate service dog behavior would go far in taking care of this problem. Businesses typically have no problems ejecting poorly behaving humans. They should feel just as confident in asking poorly behaving canines to depart.(I won't elaborate here since this is a comment about types of disabilities not species but I agree with the arguments in favor of INCLUSION of any highly trained service animal over broad species EXCLUSIONS).

Unfortunately, these service dog groups have chosen to target and restrict the use of service dogs by people with non-"physical" disabilities. They claim that persons with psychiatric disabilties (which I have) are "faking" service dogs for their disability since they are not performing x number of trained physical tasks (my service dog is HIGHLY TRAINED but, no, he does not open doors or pick up my socks). (Actually he can but I rarely need to ask him to.)

Anyway, I do NOT believe that this is a reasonable or moral rationale for restricting my right to have a service dog for a psychatric disability. These service dog groups state that all service dog work that cannot be specifically described as a physical tasks should be excluded. They do not provide a comprehensive list of what these "tasks" should be but they have spelled out what they think they should not be. They have requested that the definition be changed to specifically exclude emotional support even when a dog has been specifically trained to support a partner with a diagnosed emotional disability in a public situation, and work such as greeting people to provide a social inlet and/or buffer, and advanced training in providing physical or eye contact to prevent dissociation or other disabling symptoms - often referred to as "grounding". These are examples of the work that my service dog does for me on a daily basis. It may not be obvious to the casual observer but I can certainly confirm that the effect my dog has in ameliorating the symptoms of my disability is the result of years of training and partnership!

Since they have not ask for a list of acceptable tasks to be included in the definition - just the exclusions I mentioned above, I wonder where a dog that has no training but alerts to seizures or low blood sugar would fit? In or Out? What about someone who has occasional balance issues during episodes of pain caused by Sickle Cell Anemia or some other medical condition. Is their dog only a service dog when they are in crisis? If not, what are the "tasks" it is perform the rest of the time. Surely not reassurance and emotional support? That is excluded!

Oh well. I just happened upon this blog. Don't know who reads it or whether my comments matter. I just keep speaking up whenever I get a chance because I need my dog to live a normal life and I'm afraid I'm going to lose the right to take him with me. I will become housebound (again) and that is darn sad.

I am a person with a severe to profound hearing impairment.I am told by my doctor I will lose at least 1 decibal of hearing a year so in 10 years I will probably be totally deaf.12 years ago my husband and I purchased a capuchin monkey and trained it ourself to be a hearing service animal for me. I never took it into a public setting.When we traveled we would drive start to our destination. I only need her in my home in which she is trained like that of a Helping Hand monkey, free to move within the home without a leash to do her service.Now I know Helping Hands has done a wonderful service for the quageplegic but they will not recognize that my trained capuchin is a service animalalso and my disability is legitimate as any other handicap. This organization does not care about my disability and will step on little people like me in order to make sure their organization of monkeys get passes as service animals by the ADA but not my well train capuchin or others who have trianed them on their own. the cost of paying for a trained animal is ridiculous.$30,000 for a hearing dog that will need to retire after 10 years of service. A capuchin can live 40-50 years. They are so intelligent they keep learning to meet the needs of a disablity but a dog will only learn his few tricks and that is it.people are allergic to dogs so bringing them into the public can make many people sick. I too spend almost $800.00 a year for vet cost to ensure my capuchin is healthy.I need to travel with my capuchin in same scenerio cases as H.H mentioned they woudl also in cases of travel or emergencies, yet they refuse to acknowledge that other people not just them can train a monkey to do a service task specifically for the individual's disability needs.I think we could make it work. Just make the rules for having service animals stricter. A person should need to show proof of their disability if it is not visble.We have to show our driver's license.Maybe a service animal permit could be issued where we must show we are taking animal to vet and animal is really doing a service task for us and states whether their task is needed in public setting like stores or restaurants or not..paying for a permit would be money coming into the government.This would eliminate the frauds and those abusing the rules.I know many people do not need to take their service animal to a mall, restaurant or store. I would guess about 90% of service animal are not needed there. It is when one has to travel or in cases of fire or emergency where the animal is needed to be with owner and protected as a service animal.Animals have been being used in labs for years to serve man kind .Here is a way in which they can but in a humane way that is rewarding to the disabled as to the animal. I know my capuchin holds her head high when I praise her for her good work!

Doren, I am sorry for the trouble you have in getting your capuchin recognized and issues with Helping Hands. But, I take offense to your comment "a dog will only learn his few tricks." What my dog does is not a trick just as what your monkey does is not a trick ... or is it?

I also take offense to your suggestion of requiring some sort of permit ... money to the government you say. I am guessing you and your husband live on more than $800 a month. Many people with disabilities live on Social Security and/or SSI. Individuals with disabilities are disproportionately unemployed and chronically underemployed. As a person with multiple disabilities, and I know I speak for many, I have numerous costs related to my disability that non-disabled people don't have which further erodes my limited income. Why should I (we) be forced to take on yet another financial burden by obtaining some permit through the government.

If my disability is not visible, why should I be held to this significantly higher standard and be required to share my medical condition as you spell out above? That is a bit personal you know and unfortunately when word gets out you have a disability the door to stigma and discrimination is wide open. And if we open the door by requiring people to "prove" they are "worthy" to have such an animal and then "judge" the actual work the animal does then we are setting ourselves up to divide the disabled community into the "haves" and "have nots."

When we put a person or agency in charge of something like this then their biases come in to play. Unfortunately disability doesn't just mean blind or paralyzed. Rather disabilities encompass every bodily system and function and as such one blanket set of rules or criteria will not be inclusive to everyone with a disability ... tarnishing the spirit of the ADA.

It's been awhile since anyone posted here, but I just found this blog, and want to say the anon post of April 14 is right on.

HIPPA says our medical information is private. We should not have to provide it to Walmart greeters, waitresses, etc.

And more money out for a permit? We already pay for dog licenses. If they want ID, let the gov put it on the tag we get for our dogs, the same as is done for license plates on our vehicles.

As for training, the services needed vary from one disabled person to another. Where are you going to find qualified trainers for all the different disability related services performed by these animals? And how does one demonstrate the animal's service without, for example, having a seizure, so it can be proven that the animal assists?

A recent experience at Walmart is an example of some people's ignorance about service animals. My "ServiceDogBear" twittered about it, and there's a link to a blog. It's a new blog, a new twitter account, inspired by the incident. If you want to read about it, look for ServiceDogBear on Twitter and follow the link to the blog.

In fact, I think I'm going to borrow anon's post for a very clear and articulate discussion about it. Just because Pres.Obama put a halt to the issue doesn't mean it's over by a long shot. Those of us who object to the DOJ stance need to keep the discussion going until it's resolved.

Oh, I forgot to mention: My doctor warns me to avoid "fumes". PERfume is a "fume" that causes me to cough and sneeze - but I don't get to tell people they can't wear it...

please stop these people selling monkeys as for service monkeys to help with disabilities these people are full of monkey business lies tricking people in ways to get these animals in restaurants and grocery stores these people are animal brokers. Joan Newberger, James Poole
Thanks for your time.