Pets- unpopular viewpoint

valhalla360 wrote:

PUCampin wrote:
Like many situations, the laws and definitions exist...

Sorry but ADA is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Not so much the service animal specifically but just in general as I deal with it for work and while I make extra money complying, it's frustrating to watch all the waste that goes into meeting it.

Your post is a great theory but unfortunately, ADA is a poorly written piece of legislation and the disabled and their interest groups have for a long time vilified anyone who doesn't bow down to their interpretation of ADA. ADA should have been written with very specific requirements of what, when and where actions are needed with the legislature updating the act if new needs are found, so that they could be vetted by the larger public.

It basically boils down, to you have to provide "reasonable" accommodation but they never defined what "reasonable" is and over the years the definition grows ever larger and it's special interest groups doing the redefining.

The "comfort" animals are a total joke but by the definition you gave, if you can get a doctor to sign off, it's easy to meet your definition. If the law was very specific, they could have defined the tasks covered by service animals and "comfort" animals wouldn't qualify. Plus asking your questions would likely get a shocked and horrified response (whether you can legally ask or not).

ADA: good in theory bad in actual application.

Not sure I made my point as concisely as I could have. I was not speaking to the ADA in general or holding up the ADA as a paragon of legislation, but referencing part of it to illustrate that there is actually a definition of what constitutes a service animal, and that most comfort animals and support animals do not meet the requirements. The third requirement is also a limitation. The dog must not cause a disruption in public, otherwise the dog can be legally excluded. So legally, a poorly behaving animal can be tossed from a store or location regardless if it is wearing a service vest or not.

The problems and difficulties are multifaceted.

First in respect to service animals, there is no identifying certificate for the animal. I believe originally it was assumed the task the animal performed would be as obvious as any accessible device, such as a guide dog. As service animals began to venture into the realm of psychiatric aids, it has become muddy, and this is where much of the abuse is coming from. With no official certificate, anyone can put on a vest and say it is a service animal.

Second, enforcement of the limitations. Most legitimate service animals will be obvious. Of the not so obvious ones, The two questions legally allowed can ferret out some of the not legitimate animals. Example, "What task is your animal trained to perform? He can detect when I am having a seizure" Is it perfect, no. Also, like stated above, the animal must not cause a disruption in public. Legitimate trained service animals RARELY cause a disruption. If an animal causes a disruption it can legally be excluded. The issue is most people, owners, managers are afraid of confrontation, afraid of offending someone, afraid of reprisal, and are often bullied into accepting when they should not have to. And because the individuals with the fake service animal are not challenged, they are emboldened to continue and will become offended and incensed at the slightest. Like I noted in my original post, you do not see comfort animals at places that are not afraid to challenge. I have seen service animals at Disneyland many times, it was obvious what their task was. I have NEVER seen comfort animals or any animal that is just being carried around. I am sure it has been tried.

In regards to the ADA, in some respects it has to be vague because disabilities and situations are so varied. If necessary "reasonable" can be defined by a judge, but if you get too specific in the legislation, you run the risk of excluding some of those it is meant to help. However I agree with you in that it is used to beat others over the head, and I have a disabled child!

There are also other laws that come into play that contradict and muddy things further. HIPAA does not allow asking about the disability or to ask for proof of the disability. Sometimes this makes it hard to provide accommodations when you have to beat around the bush what need accommodating! As a parent of a disabled, and everyone in our community I know, we would all be more that happy to demonstrate why and what accommodations are needed for our child. This has made it very easy to abuse the system, and it is almost always the fakers who make excessive demands and give the rest of us a bad name.

You mentioned specifics, even when specifics are spelled out they can be abused. Not sure where you are located, but since you deal with the ADA you may have heard of the Trevor Law Group cases in California. This law firm made their money by shaking down small business under the ADA. They would send someone in and look for frivolous violations, such as the mirror being an inch over the minimum required height in the bathroom, and then file a lawsuit. Later it was proven that many times the individual the suit was filed on behalf of never even visited the business and the lawsuit was filed under the Unfair Competition Law. Then they would offer to settle the suit for around $3000, usually less than it would cost the business to go to court and fight the suit, so most business settled and paid. Eventually the lawyers were disciplined.

Anyway, I suppose this kind of left the rails, but I always appreciate a good discussion and different points of view. I even agree that the ADA is not written as well as it could be and has been the subject of abuse, but I know without it we would have a lot more difficulty doing normal things with my child.