Denny's Free Grand Slam Breakfast Day Tuesday
Marina Yoga Studio Donates Old Mats for Haitian Relief
Prop 8 Trial Judge Is Gay; Should This Matter?
Muni Bus Nails a Fire Hydrant
Sarah Palin Calls Global Warming Studies 'Snake Oil' at NorCal Conference
You've probably noticed that there are a great many "service animals" on Muni and elsewhere these days, and this is due in large part to the laxness with which the City's policy on service dogs is enforced, and due to the fear of legal reprisals on the part of Muni drivers, landlords and others who don't want to end up in federal court on discrimination charges. SF Weekly's Joe Eskanazi takes a thorough look this week at the dicey issue of service dogs and the many and sundry pets masquerading as service animals on public transportation and in SROs all over town.
First we have bipolar Charles Esler whose vicious little bitch Chihuahua Tita has chased a woman across Dolores Park, lunged at a Social Security Office employee, and bit Joe Eskanazi himself while he sat in Mr. Esler's apartment. Despite being ill-trained and ill-humored, Tita is a legally recognized service animal who is a "vital component" of Mr. Esler's psychiatric treatment.
The article goes on to profile several other of the 500 legally permitted service animals around town -- including Cosmie Silfa's iguana Skippy, and a group of hamsters who serve to alleviate one woman's pain over her inability to conceive children -- and to touch on precedents like "the Pookie case" that have landlords running scared of contesting any tenants' claims with regard to service animals. Eskanazi also points to the epidemic of service dog impostors on public transportation, whose owners have simply slapped on "a little coat," a red-cross leash, or printed an easily procured service animal patch off the internet, simply because they like having the dogs with them at all times.
But the kicker is saved for last: the story of alcoholic mess Heather Morris and her 125-pound Italian mastiff Fiona, who has been officially registered as a "vicious and dangerous dog," has attacked most of her neighbors, and bitten a 62-year-old woman on the breast while the dog was tied up, unmuzzled, to a park bench. Morris -- who also keeps multiple rats and turtles in her Bernal Heights home and claims they are vital to her treatment now that she stopped taking her anti-psychotics -- is determined to get Fiona licensed as a service animal so that she may threaten and injure citizens on trains and buses across the city until someone finally slaps this woman or gets the dog put down.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
As I understand it, based on the ADA or some such regulation it is illegal to ask anyone about the status of their so-called "service animal" or to require any sort of certification. I'll get upset about this later, in the event some alleged "service animal" bites or craps on my shoes.
That picture is crazy
Can I claim my girlfriend as a "service animal" and get her on the bus for free?
There is a 30-part porn video series directed by Joey Silvera that you should know about!
Oooh, do tell.
I wonder if this lax policy has similar consequences to those folks to obtain those blue disability placards.
You're supposed to have a printed form from the DMV with the name, etc, of your doctor in your posession when you have one. Channel 4 (or 2, or 7, or 5) was reporting that 1/5 of the population of SF has a placard. Channel 4 did a "people Behaving Badly" sting a few months ago and 100% of the people they confronted were cheaters. I've seen them for sale on the street. I have never, ever seen a person with an obvious disability using one, unless someone who's run out of doughnuts is now in an ADA-protected class.
That doesn't surprise me at all. Where I work, there's this disabled placard on a silver Toyota Tacoma pickup... with a 2ft aftermarket lift kit.
Completely ridiculous. While there might be a plausible excuse for this person (weak heart, can't walk from the garage), I doubt it.
Why aren't these people ashamed of themselves?
This is also one more reason to never give money to a bum with a pet. If you can feed the dog, you can buy your own goddamn cheeseburger.
It's knuckleheads who abuse these kinds of laws that make city living unpleasant, and remind us of the hippie welfare entitlement mentality that thrives these days. People who actually NEED real service animals have to put up with some asshat who drags his (insert animal here) all over creation to "feel good."
Just like "medical" marijuana, disabled placards, and so on, the people who are in real need of these things are lumped into the same category as some mushy-thinking, needy hippie who abuses these things. While they get the free ride, the rest of us pay.
Hey, watch the name calling...
I have three dogs and I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have an acquaintence who went to her SF doctor and got some kind of "I need my dog with me constantly or I'll be anxious" tag that allows her to bring her inadequately housetrained dog into all kinds of places it simply doesn't belong (since it's NOT housetrained).
I've pretty much quit hanging out with her at all because of this. I get enough grief just having dogs, the last thing I need is these boneheads making it worse for everyone.
I'm moving overseas in September and have been concerned with how I'm going to gt my dog over there. A woman that works for a rescue agency told me to go to the doctor to get a note that I need him for my phychological wellbeing and he could ride in the cabin with me for free -and, yes, it is illegal for anyone to ask WHY I need him with me.
Now, while that sounds enticing, having a frightened 135 lb beast in the cabin of an aircraft for 11+ hours doesn't sound sane. She says she has recommended that to many people and no one has ever had a problem.
Beyond ridiculous, I think it's irresponsible to recommend something like this. Obviously, there is a never ending supply of self-entitled jerks who would act upon this, but for the safety and comfort for all concerned, I'll be shipping my dog the correct way.
Imagine if he had gas?
OK, although in that case, I might actually do it. The risks of leaving a dog in cargo for an 11 hour overseas flight would outweigh any concerns I had about my fellow passengers. You think he'd be scared with you in cabin? Shove him in a crate and throw him in the belly of the plane for 11 hours and see how scared he gets.
Besides, I've traveled with my dogs in cabin before (and paid a hefty fee for doing so). They didn't seem frightened at all (of course, I gave them a mild sedative). They seemed to think we were in a car. They slept.
i bet someone could make a lot of money if they figured out a way to make sedatives that work on dogs in crates. chemistry is weird!
maybe she does get anxious when she isn't with her dog, and maybe she does have a close relationship with that particular dog who isn't house trained.
She doesn't really get anxious. She said she got it so she could take the dog wherever she wanted.
Oh noes! people are getting away with stuff!!! Oh the humanity!
So sensational, that SFWeekly. And so reactionary you San Franciscans. This is going to result in people reading the first page of the article only and then targetting anyone with a service animal that doesn't appear to need one with typical yuppie glares and blog commentary. There are some real things going on here: the lack of affordable rentals that accept pets, legislation concerning service animals that has been tabled in Congress for a LONG time, and the inexplicable intolerance towards people with non-visible disabilities. It is none of your business who has a "service" animal and it is none of your business who might be abusing placard use.
It most certainly is our business, as people who are trying to share within the confines of the city, to investigate who might be abusing placard use - if for no other reason than to protect the interests of those who legitimately need them.
Oh cut the crap about this "targeting." How about we "target" the abuse, and then there won't be a well-founded suspicion of abuse?
You don't have to be a "typical yuppie" to be infuriated by a perfectly able-bodied person walking out of his car with disabled placard and not paying his meter, just because he managed to get a note from a corrupt doctor. This falls in the same category.
While it is DEFINITELY the place of DPT to target abuse of placards (and keep the fines, coming, please, and while you're at it ticket sidewalk parkers and double parkers and crosswalk blockers), it is not for us to judge people based on appearances. 1 out of 5 people has a disability, and just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. It's none of your business, and doctors have to put their license numbers on those forms. Look to the medical boards, QA departments, the DMV and the DPT.
I have Attention Deficit Disorder; is it okay if I bring my pitbull on the 22??
Is it any of our business if we get bit or shit on? Because that seems to be happening to people more than it should be.
Animals bite and shit, whether or not they are service animals. This article blows this situation out of proportion.
Real service animals are bred and trained not to bite and shit on the general public. Purse chihuahua "service animals" are not and they are the ones causing the problems.
Agreed that the policy as it exists seems to be a mess.
The actual article was practically unreadable, though.
It is a shame that businesses don't read up on their rights. If a service animal causes a disruption while in a store, they can demand that the handler remove the animal (and continue their shopping without it). It is also unfortunate that the Obama administration shelved the proposed changes instead of implementing them. That would have cut out the so-called service reptiles and called for service animals to be potty trained.
Afghanistan or service pet legislation? The economy or service pet legislation? Those must have been tough resource calls.
The thing is.......the legislation has already passed the House and Senate....all Big "O" has to do is sign it.....if he isnt too busy taking vacations in France and New York or making speeches in Cairo. Hey, Imam Obama.......pick up a pen and sign it! Or is it too complicated for you?
I'm pretty sure if you and I sat down and parsed all the problems of our modern day society - Obama might end up being quite the culprit, eh?
I don't think anything "passed the House and Senate" - I think TempAcct2 was talking about this DOJ administrative regulation, not legislation. Were this an unsigned legislative initiative it would become law with or without a signature, barring a veto.
This reminds me of a scene I witnessed at 2nd and Market a few weeks ago .... some vagrant-looking guy standing near the corner was pre-occupied with his cell phone and not paying attention to his dog on a 10' or so leash. A blind man with a service dog walked between the vagrant and his mutt, getting clotheslined by the leash .. and to top it off, the vagrant's mutt started to attack the service dog ... the vagrant was clearly in a drunken stupor or something, barely reacting. I was hoping the blind guy would whack the idiot and his stupid dog with his cane, but I guess he has a better temperment than me.
I can hardly stand to go to the Market Street Safeway because of the dogs inside!! They may have a service dog "tag" but they are NOT at all trained not to sniff the food, nuzzle people, wander, etc. The people with them have no visible disabilities (yes, I get it that many disabilities are invisible) and do not pay adequate attention to the dogs. I am sorry, dogs and produce are a bad combo and Safeway staff are spineless. I have pointed out to them when dogs are present with no tags and they will not ask the patrons to leave.
they will not ask the patrons to leave.
Read the article. They can't ask whether the animal is a service dog, as it's illegal and they will be sued.
That's why we need a law mandating that service animals wear tags when they're on the job.
I believe businesses do have the right to ask two questions: "Are you disabled?" and "Is this a service dog?"
Businesses also have the right to have the handler remove any animal that behaves in a threatening manner, much less one that bites ANYONE (including the handler).
A trained service dog is well-behaved and serves as more than simply a comfort animal. It performs specific tasks for the handler. A service dog must be well-behaved to be an effective help to the handler.
I think that some of the people who are passing their dogs as Service Animals are actually confusing Service dogs with Emotional Support Animals (ESAs).
Emotional Support Animals
http://www.servicedogcentral.org/content/node/256
"ESAs are not task trained like service dogs are. In fact little training at all is required so long as the animal is reasonably well behaved by pet standards.
----> This means the animal is fully toilet trained and has no bad habits that would disturb neighbors such is frequent or lengthy episodes of barking.
"The animal should not pose a danger to other tenants or to workmen. But there is no requirement for fancy heeling or mitigating tasks since
---> Emotional Support Animals are generally NOT taken anywhere pets would not ordinarily go. (the exception being to fly in the cabin of an aircraft, even if the airline does not ordinarily accept pets)."
(arrows for emphasis are mine.)
There are always people who use misuse laws meant to help people who actually NEED the help. I think this is one of those cases.
The article stated: "Despite being ill-trained and ill-humored, Tita is a legally recognized service animal who is a 'vital component' of Mr. Esler's psychiatric treatment."
This is incorrect. Tita is NOT legally recognized as a service animal! A service animal not only must be trained to do tasks that mitigate the disabled individual's disability, but must be trained to behave impeccably. No service dog can go in public places while being a threat to the public.
All the aggressive, ill-behaved dogs in this article and the original article are not service dogs. They are a threat to the public and cannot legally go into stores, restaurants, and other businesses.
Emotional support dogs - dogs who are not trained to do tasks, but are for the well-being of a mentally disabled person - cannot go into businesses no matter how well they behave, as they are not service dogs. Service dogs must be task-trained and those tasks must directly relate to the person's disability (a dog that retrieves items is not a service dog for a person whose disability does not make getting items hard for the person).
With a doctor's letter that states specific things (including the statement that the person is disabled by a disorder listed in the DSM-IV doctor's handbook), emotional support dogs are allowed in airplane cabins. They are also allowed, with a doctor's letter, in no-pets housing.
Psychiatric service dogs, which are task-trained for people with mental disabilities, are allowed in public and are allowed, with the same doctor's letter as for emotional support dogs, in airplane cabins. They are also allowed in no-pets housing with a doctor's letter.
All other types of service dogs are allowed in public and in airplane cabins. They are also allowed in no-pets housing with a doctor's letter.
A business has every legal right to ask, "Are you disabled?", "Is this your service dog?", and "What tasks has the dog been trained to do that mitigate your disability?" A business can deny access to any dog, even a real service dog, that is causing a disruption (such as barking repeatedly during a movie or otherwise being uncontrollable) or that is a threat to the public (such as being aggressive/biting). They do have to allow the disabled handler back in the business without the dog to finish their business there (i.e. their shopping trip).