My personal views on Service Animals

[SpAzpieSweeTot]

On a recent thread, I mentioned SDs and SMHs. I'm so acquainted with the law as it is written, there are parts I don't even have to look at anymore. My ability to do that, doesn't mean my opinion matches it perfectly.

My personal views are more anarchic. I plan on calling ahead, and explaining that I am willing to stake my reputation on, that it will behave appropriately, and that if my dog doesn't behave, I expect to have my legally disabled ass thrown out, and ask the owner if we understand each other, that the business owner has rights, too, and ask if I can patronize the business. If my medical equipment isn't wanted, I'm not wanted, and neither is my money. I'll take it all elsewhere. If I cannot call ahead, I'll explain the law in person, explain the business owners rights, and that if doggo can't behave in a manner befitting his title, I expect us to be thrown out, but will fix the problem, and leave, before that ever happens. I'll explain the law, but won't wait for, or call the people in blue costumes with guns to come and force some poor business owner to let me stay somewhere I'm not wanted. I'll get my money back, and leave.

Directly from ada.gov

• Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility

No one at uber was being ableist, and no one who was on the handler's side was, either! The driver wasn't disablingly allergic!

Hell, a legit medical disability isn't necessarily enough to get an SD. CP isn't enough, if you aren't substantially limited by it. Same with every other medical disability, mild enough not to be substantially limiting, legally, you aren't disabled, unless you are substantially limited in one or more major life activities, or major bodily functions.

People's personal, private, medical information is their business, their doctors' business, and if a case gets brought to court, their lawyers', and their judges' business. It's not anyone else's business. That's why businesses representatives can only ask the 2 questions.

 

[Calico]

I've already sent you a response already to your post via PM.

 

[BirdCat]

For the record, I was replying to Daniel's post, which is why I quoted them. Your reply seemed way off in left field so I didn't reply to it.
I know the service dog laws. I've read through them more than once and have much of it memorized. I know that under that law allergies and phobias aren't considered valid reasons to deny service dogs. Just because it's a law, doesn't mean that it's right. Laws that aren't right have existed for ages and some of them have been changed while others are still in need of changing. What qualifies as "substantially limiting" is subjective. You may not think a person's allergy or phobia is substantially limiting but they might, likewise one doctor may think it's not substantially limiting while another may think it is. It all depends on who you ask. It's not right, and it is certainly not in the spirit of equality, to treat allergies and phobias like they matter less than other disabilities. I'm sorry that you don't agree. That's the last I'm going to bother saying on the subject here since clearly nothing I say will change your mind. I'll take the high road on this one and not reply further in this argument.

 

[SpAzpieSweeTot]

There are tests doctors do to assess the major life activities and major bodily functions. Those tests aren't subjective. Besides, it ain't up to me. It's up to doctors. They're the ones that test people to see if they meet the definition. A truly disabling fear is already covered. A dog allergy bad enough to damage the senses permanently, is already covered, under brain or neurological. It might seem strange, but the nose is actually directly connected to the brain. I'll gladly defend any truly disabling fear or allergy, visible or not. That's all I was trying to say the whole time.

If I got a job being an unharnessed rock climber, when I'll never take an unassisted step, that would put me in harms way, so it wouldn't be the job for me. If you have a pet allergy bad enough to permanently damage your body, maybe driving the public around isn't safe for you. One can't turn other disabled people down, because he or she has one, in the US. One can be responsible for oneself, and choose the right job for him or her.

 

[BirdCat]

There are tests doctors do to assess the major life activities and major bodily functions. Those tests aren't subjective. Besides, it ain't up to me. It's up to doctors. They're the ones that test people to see if they meet the definition. A truly disabling fear is already covered. A dog allergy bad enough to damage the senses permanently, is already covered, under brain or neurological. It might seem strange, but the nose is actually directly connected to the brain. I'll gladly defend any truly disabling fear or allergy, visible or not. That's all I was trying to say the whole time.

If I got a job being an unharnessed rock climber, when I'll never take an unassisted step, that would put me in harms way, so it wouldn't be the job for me. If you have a pet allergy bad enough to permanently damage your body, maybe driving the public around isn't safe for you. One can't turn other disabled people down, because he or she has one, in the US. One can be responsible for oneself, and choose the right job for him or her.

Doctors and testing are another issue in and of itself. Several years ago I went to my doctor because I had chest pains and trouble breathing off and on. He asked me questions and scheduled some tests. When the results came back he said "you have asthma" and gave me an inhaler. But the thing that was supposed to help actually made the problem worse. I went to a different doctor for a second opinion. She looked over the results of the previous tests and said "you don't have asthma" and scheduled some more tests. Nobody ever figured out what's actually wrong but both doctors still strongly stand by their interpretation of the results. Throughout my childhood I was given plenty of tests by plenty of psychologists and doctors that each came up with different results: ADD, ADHD, ODD, Bipolar. And then I went to the city to have more tests done and they finally said "You don't have ADD, ADHD or ODD and you're not bipolar. You're autistic." It is extremely common for autism, among other conditions of the mind, to be misdiagnosed multiple times throughout the person's life. It is even common for physical conditions to be misdiagnosed, tests to prove inconclusive, or problems not to be found despite testing and retesting. Somewhere near forty percent. It isn't just testing, it's interpretation of testing results by doctors too, so it's subject to human error and personal bias. I've read an article about a psychologist that refused to give certain diagnoses because she didn't believe they're actual conditions. I've seen it all over, even here, where tests get done and they don't really get clear results. And I've seen it in the news, in educational material at school, and all over the place where the real severity of a condition isn't discovered until well after the initial diagnosis or multiple wrong diagnoses are given before the actual condition is found. When you have human beings administering tests and interpreting results there will always be a degree of subjectivity and human error.

 

[Calico]

Birdcat, are you female by any chance? It's quite common for females to be misdiagnosed because autism appears different in girls. We are so good at mimicking we fool doctors.

 

[SpAzpieSweeTot]

Don't I know it?

And people wonder why I don't have, "You have a spectrumite brain, and have had it since you were born," formally diagnosed?

How much money do they think I have? How many specialists know anything about what a spectrumite brain looks like when it's grown? Now, how many of those people, can spot it when it's female? Great, smaller pool, now take that smaller pool. How many of those can spot it, if you wrap it in a CP burrito? The tortilla is hiding it, and sometimes it can take a while to get the right diagnosis. Keep fighting and find a good doctor. A white coat doesn't make a person not an idiot, and when they get it right, more than likely, you will be covered, but you may actually have been covered the whole time. The law isn't perfect, but it's as close as we can get without mucking up owner trainers' rights, and others,' and opening a giant can of worms, in my opinion.

I most likely will need some guide work done. I'm sighted. I'm also a lot like Temple in the movie about her. You know the scene,"How will I know it's my room?," and when the room sign falls off her door, she melts down? That's me, except add a wheelchair, the fact that I have mastered the art of the internal freakout, and the fact that it'd happen to me in public, instead of private.

Some auties, and most NTs, can spot a specific place, or car. All I see is, "big building."

In my teens, we were headed to my doctor, and I actually picked the right building! I was so proud of me! I spotted it because I recognized the waiting room chairs, visible from the car, through the window. If they hadn't been there, I'd have been clueless.

Here's the issue. Where does the need for guide work come from? Is it my CP, or my autism, which isn't diagnosed yet? Do I really want it diagnosed? I'm grown. It can't help that much. I get it. Disability and self advocacy can be a nightmare, from diagnosis, to accommodation. I'm afraid of getting one part of the SD. process wrong, and really feeling it. My brain won't let me move forward with it, until I'm covered legally.

My brain also wouldn't stop itching until it knew people understood all my points, which is why I got so. . . Utterly hopelessly frustrated, and, admittedly, possibly frustrating.

It was like, "No, they don't understand because you didn't say it right, moron! It's your fault! Communicate better, and they'll understand!"

MetallicPebble, MDs are going to want to up any patient's meds, before opting for a non-drug treatment. Sadly, it's what they do. They're medical doctors. Not wanting one's meds upped is very valid.

I know of someone was able to make the argument to his doctor that the drugs hurt more than helped, because they made him physically sick, and caused psychological problems worse than the ones he already had. He now doesn't need any meds, and has an SD.

 

[rennecfox]

Honestly I think support animals are getting abused by the psychiatry field today. There needs to be restrictions where support animals in particular are allowed. A service animal helping a disabled person is one thing when its clearly marked and you can identify the animal as such, but support animals not being required to show having in some cases little or no training being allowed to go all the same places and businesses not even being allowed to challenge this is ridiculous,

 

[SpAzpieSweeTot]

Honestly I think support animals are getting abused by the psychiatry field today. There needs to be restrictions where support animals in particular are allowed. A service animal helping a disabled person is one thing when its clearly marked and you can identify the animal as such, but support animals not being required to show having in some cases little or no training being allowed to go all the same places and businesses not even being allowed to challenge this is ridiculous,

Emotional Support Animals don't have Public Access rights with owners.

They can only:
Fly on planes
Live in no pets housing

SDs do trained tasks, or trained work, or both. ESAs don't do anything but what comes naturally, and it can help, but isn't tasks or work, so they aren't allowed in public, being essentially, "specially exempt from those 2 things," pets.

Now Service Dog training.

Once the dog is active, which means can do work or perform tasks to mitigate a disability, and is capable of public access, we don't have to carry our training logs with us everyday, and generally just keep them for court.

During the training phase, we keep them on us, in case a business owner wants to see. The paper trail for documenting so many hours of training is just too much to carry everyday. I just looked it up. At least 120 hours of schooling is required. At least 30 hours of that, have to be spent on outings. I'm a fan of overkill, I guess.

https://www.iaadp.org/iaadp-minimum-training-standards-for-public-access.html

Working the dog naked we can do because the handler's disability, and the dog's training, make it an SD, not registration, certification, or special markings, like IDs. A lot of people think specific Service Dog IDs are illegal. They aren't, If they come from ADI, or IGDF. In no way, shape, form, fashion, happenstance, and by no stretch of the imagination, does a Service Dog in. . . In. . . In. . . In. . . In. . . In. . . America need one!

Programs accredited by Assistance Dogs International, and the International Guide Dog Foundation actually require those IDs, not because it accredits a team here in America, but because, if a team from America wants to go abroad, the UK, for example, and fly by commercial airliner, with the dog in cabin, the handler is required by the Civil Aviation Authority to have a dog from an ADI or IGDF accredited program, and who'd I just say requires those IDs? ADI and the IGDF. There are ADI accredited programs here, too. They want handlers from their affiliates to be able to travel abroad. the rest of us, I suppose. Here's the thing, the Equality Act changed, and now, owner trained Assistance Dogs are recognized. As long as the dog is PETS compliant, which is the law related to bringing dogs, cats, ferrets, and Service Dogs, from other countries into the UK, and requires pet passport or other documents, microchip, rabies vaccine, a titer test, to make sure it worked, and a tapeworm treatment, we can't be denied for not having an ID, vest or harness, or the little yellow ID book thingy, as long as the handler and dog in question aren't in the bloomin' commercial air! Private jet, anyone!? Hello!?

Other countries might require an ADI or IGDF accreditation to legitimize a Team! I don't know, or care. Well, I do care, but I just wanna see my Bubbles! That's my British brother from another mother, bestie.

Now, from the UK, back to America. We also either keep a doctor's letter in our court folder, or expect our medical records subpoenaed, if we go to court. But it's only required one show that doctor's letter to someone, every time we do the public transit thing, when under Department of Transportation law, including the Federal Aircarrier Access Act, and even then, only for Psychiatric Service Dogs, and only because there's no distinction between ESAs and PSDs, under DOT law. Under ADA law, there's a massive difference. Personally that erks me. PSDs are task and or work trained to mitigate a disability. That's different from an ESA.

This is a PSD task example.

A handler isn't sure if he is hallucinating. He commands the dog to say hi, and points to the possible person, possible hallucination.

If there is a human to say hi to, the dog goes and greets, if not, the dog goes in the direction of the handler's point, and seeing no one, signals, "No one's there, boss," in a trained way.

Why some may not vest or harness.

It gets hot and dogs only sweat from paw pads and nose.

Some people can't afford equipment that would make it obvious, or simply don't have the spoons that day to put it on. You can always tell a Service Dog by exemplary behavior.

One particular team comes to mind. Everyone who sees Colt, knows he's a Service Dog, even when he's naked, because the day he's bad in public, is the day I sprout 2 noses. That dog. . . Wow! You can tell his handler/trainer (Yep, he's owner-trained.) trained Military Working Dogs.

Some states call certain SDs Therapy Dog, and give them P.A. Rights. A TD is like an ESA, for the public. They cheer up patients. Do not call a disabling allergen detection dog, or a trained PSD, or any other dog that provides a disability mitigating service, TD, crazy state law people! Not yelling, emphasizing. State laws can be nutty.

 

[rennecfox]

I see them in my grocery store all the time, usually by owners who look like if they need a support dog they shouldn't be interreacting with the public in the first place (in their pjamas, yanking on the poor frightened fidos like mad, gets me upset)

 

[SpAzpieSweeTot]

I see them in my grocery store all the time, usually by owners who look like if they need a support dog they shouldn't be interreacting with the public in the first place (in their pjamas, yanking on the poor frightened fidos like mad, gets me upset)

Right? Makes me sad and upset too.
Fakes are annoying. Report any misbehaving dogs, or abusive handlers, to a manager, please. Maybe remind the manager or owner they can ask if it's an SD, and what work or tasks it has been trained to perform. Be advised that not all disabilities are visible.

Also, I edited my last post, so you could see an example of a PSD task. See it? Another example of a Psychiatric Service Dog task would be to interrupt self-injurious behavior, like certain stims, or suicide attempts, and in the case of a suicide attempt, maybe even call for help on a special phone. Another would be searching the handler's house, or maybe even hotel room, for people, even known people, so the handler doesn't overreact to people being in his or her space, without the person's knowledge, and hurt someone.

Find me an ESA capable of finding his missing autistic handler, by doing nose work, and I will bow down and kiss someone's butt! No ESA can do that, unless it was an ESA first, then someone trained it, and it became an SD.

Now, tiny dogs have a reputation for being fakes, deserved or not. The general rule of thumb is, "Get the smallest dog capable of doing the job the handler needs."

Less public transit and plane issues that way.

Absolute bare minimum, a light mobility (bracing and counter balance) dog, should be at least 24" at the he shoulder, and 55 pounds, a heavy mobility dog should be at least 70 pounds, and may need to be 28 or more inches tall. Depends on the handler, and the job.

Assuming the handler doesn't need mobility work done at all, a little dog might be appropriate. The biggest fear I have is someone stepping on a small dog. I heard of someone's power scooter wheels getting caught on his dog's leash, too, yikes!

Try not to judge by gear. Case and point, a lady who runs a program, works primarily with standard poodles. Poodles are so smart, and better for people with allergies, that they make fantastic SDs but they're hell, sheer hell, to groom, so, her personal SD, and any of the dogs she trains, wear body suits. She likes to keep them fun. Sometimes she gets challenged because people aren't used to seeing SDs in body suits. I bet the general public wouldn't offer to groom him after work without a body suit.

They're a good idea because plane floors are bloody freezing, handlers don't know where public floors have been, so, every time the dog does an, "under," they're taking a risk of them getting dirty, and some people, handlers or not, are allergic to dogs, and body suits keep the dander contained.

Blind people aren't the only ones who can benefit from a guide handle. Autistic people can need the feedback from the handle to be aware of the dogs movements because of sensory issues. Post seizure confusion can cause a person to need to be guided to safety. Same for dissociative people. Not all guide handles look the same, though.

I tried to answer all the questions you actually had, plus a few you might have. Let me know if you have anymore.

 

[SpAzpieSweeTot]

I've already sent you a response already to your post via PM.

I know you did, sweetheart. I put it there for BirdCat.

For the record, I was replying to Daniel's post, which is why I quoted them. Your reply seemed way off in left field so I didn't reply to it.
I know the service dog laws. I've read through them more than once and have much of it memorized. I know that under that law allergies and phobias aren't considered valid reasons to deny service dogs. Just because it's a law, doesn't mean that it's right. Laws that aren't right have existed for ages and some of them have been changed while others are still in need of changing. What qualifies as "substantially limiting" is subjective. You may not think a person's allergy or phobia is substantially limiting but they might, likewise one doctor may think it's not substantially limiting while another may think it is. It all depends on who you ask. It's not right, and it is certainly not in the spirit of equality, to treat allergies and phobias like they matter less than other disabilities. I'm sorry that you don't agree. That's the last I'm going to bother saying on the subject here since clearly nothing I say will change your mind. I'll take the high road on this one and not reply further in this argument.

I know you were quoting Daniel. I was trying to help you see Daniel was correct. Just as Service Dog handlers are taking personal responsibility for their own issues, by using medical equipment called a Service Dog, dog allergic people must take personal responsibility for their own allergies, should a handler's living medical device make him or her allergic.

When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.

"I'd need a doctor, or further damage my body, and thus, would stay alive, but have my ability to live a meaningful life sucked away, or die, or possibly cause somebody else to do the same, if I got near your dog," (disablingly) allergic people already get separate rooms, or even floors, whenever possible.

"I'd have a histamine reaction, but wouldn't need a doctor, or do any damage to myself or others, " (non-disablingly) allergic people already get moved as far away within the area as possible. It's the allergic person's responsibility to self advocate, at the end of the day.

That covers everyone with allergies, with the law that exists now.

If you own a business, or seat people at a restaurant, or something like that, you have the right to say, "I'm allergic, please stay as far away from me as possible," or, "I'm going to have someone else come seat you. I'm allergic, or, "I represent this business, but also am allergic to dogs. This is my employee. He or she will act as my proxy, while I stay far enough away to not have a reaction, and help you solve this problem."

Wearing a mask would also work, in some cases.

If you drive for a ride service where you use your own vehicle, owning a nice big van, and seating the team in the back is a good idea, so the distance between you and the dog as wide as possible. It's not segregation, in this case, because the allergic über driver is always present, because he or she is driving. If the handler gets snotty, which can happen, quote the law. The allergic ride service driver could also bring a mask, and wear it as he or she drives.

You. . . Sug-ges-ted. Seg-reg-a-tion. . . That's not wrong!? Talk about laws that have existed forever not being right! We got rid of that one! I don't care if it's a nice area. Separate but equal didn't work.

"This is the SD team area! It doesn't matter if an allergic person is actually here, or not!"

See how that's like, "colored," and, "White," signs!?

It's especially bad when you consider:

When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility, meaning every allergic person is already covered.

As far as fears, any doctor worth his salt would know that a fear that was like, "A knife to the throat," and could cause people to stay alive, but have their ability to live a meaningful life sucked away, get injured, or die, is substantially limiting. That's not a fear. That's a disability, and is already protected, and, at the end of the day, it's the disabled person's responsibility to know, and advocate for that.

If you're fearful or allergic, you also have the option of working somewhere even legitimate SD teams aren't allowed, like other people's private homes, (It's up to the person living there.), in addition to places I mentioned on the thread.

You suggested making every human fear a disability. Words mean things. You suggested making every human allergy a disability. Words mean things. Don't you think making every human fear a disability is going to lead to way more fakes? Except they wouldn't be fakes, and there'd effectively be no difference in an ESA and an SD, because anything that caused any modicum of fear or histamine reaction would be a disability, and there's a darn good chance standards would lower. Eventually ESAs would get public access rights. Wouldn't that make life even more a living hell for dog allergic people? You even suggested making a national registry of all teams. Well, if anyone wanted to kill us all off, it's nice to know all our names would be on a convenient little list. That's how holocausts happen! What medical equipment people use and what disabilities they have, is their business, unless and until it goes to court! That's why registries are federally illegal.

I'm sorry, I'm truly sorry it took you so long to get diagnosed. It can't be too easy to be considered legally disabled, or everybody would be. It can't be too easy to have a legit SD, either. Gotta follow the IAADP guidelines and Minimum Standards for Public Access, or at least another public access test. Some people modify the regular or Urban Canine Good Citizen, and that's okay too. Some handlers follow the ADI PAT, or their trainer's test, and that's fine, because so many people go above and beyond what they need to, but they need a test to start from and someone to administer it, and a CGC administrator can. A trainer can. An unbiased 3rd party can, if that's all a disabled handler has available. It's tough being disabled, stuck in a rural area, and without hundreds or thousands of dollars for a trainer.

Gotta actually be legally disabled, and either have a good doctor give you a letter, or expect your personal, private, medical information peeked into by lawyers and judges. Really gotta cover your butt, As I said, I'm afraid I'm going to have to go through it, a second time, this one which I'll remember, to justify some of my future dog's work.

I'm sorry some people don't know those standards exist, and I'm sorry business representatives don't know their legal rights. I'm sorry those poor people get walked all over by fakes, because they don't know they have rights. I'll make sure they do know! I swear to God I will! Poor business owners. I want them to know.

The solution isn't changing the law. It's proper education about the law that already covers everyone with an allergy, or disabling fear, and informing them about possible ways of being accommodated under it, so they can understand their own rights, and self advocate, and make sure they're accommodated appropriately. It's finding a doctor who didn't go to school in a shoebox. But we both know some of them did. Sorry you went through such hell. I truly am. I know HFA gets misdiagnosed, especially in adults, females, and people with co-occurring disabilities.

 

[ClaudTheBear]

Hello guys,

I was asked my thoughts on this topic so I figured here would be the best place to post.
Finding the balance between people's needs and accommodations needed is a tricky thing. When it comes to service animals, the truth of the matter is that it is not a free pass to do as you want and take that animal where ever you want. Best example of this is where food is being prepared. The health department has a strict policy of no animals (pets or otherwise) in restaurant kitchens. Also they can not be around buffets where food is set out for people to serve themselves. Regardless if anyone there might have an allergy to pet dander, it would be unsanitary to allow that to happen.
On the side of people with allergies, their rights will only go so far as well. Best example of this are businesses that use or have products made with nuts. They have to post that there is a danger there and the people with the allergy will have to decide if they want to eat there or not. It would be unfair to tell a restaurant they have to shut down u everything and cater to one person with a unique allergy.

I think that it comes down to is people need to be sympathetic to others around them and not solely focused on their own need/wants. I think if you feel you need a service animal then you should be ready to accept there are some places you shouldn't go. If someone has allergies, those too can't go just anywhere. There has to be a mature place in the middle were everyone can work together. Maybe the first one there gets to stay and the second one will comeback later. Of maybe see if you can be set far enough apart so its not an issue? Maybe that will mean the first person there will need to get up and move to another part of the room?
Where people really need to keep an open mind and be willing to give in is when its more then just an inconvenience for the othere person. Best example of this is if someone will have a full blown anaphylactic reaction that would require something like an epipen to save their life if they are exposed to whatever they are allergic to. If all the pet dander does is make your eyes itch a little, well maybe they can be more flexible about the service animal.

The whole point is we need to be adults and be willing to put others needs in front of our wants.

 

[SpAzpieSweeTot]

Hello guys,

I was asked my thoughts on this topic so I figured here would be the best place to post.
Finding the balance between people's needs and accommodations needed is a tricky thing. When it comes to service animals, the truth of the matter is that it is not a free pass to do as you want and take that animal where ever you want. Best example of this is where food is being prepared. The health department has a strict policy of no animals (pets or otherwise) in restaurant kitchens. Also they can not be around buffets where food is set out for people to serve themselves. Regardless if anyone there might have an allergy to pet dander, it would be unsanitary to allow that to happen.
On the side of people with allergies, their rights will only go so far as well. Best example of this are businesses that use or have products made with nuts. They have to post that there is a danger there and the people with the allergy will have to decide if they want to eat there or not. It would be unfair to tell a restaurant they have to shut down u everything and cater to one person with a unique allergy.

I think that it comes down to is people need to be sympathetic to others around them and not solely focused on their own need/wants. I think if you feel you need a service animal then you should be ready to accept there are some places you shouldn't go. If someone has allergies, those too can't go just anywhere. There has to be a mature place in the middle were everyone can work together. Maybe the first one there gets to stay and the second one will comeback later. Of maybe see if you can be set far enough apart so its not an issue? Maybe that will mean the first person there will need to get up and move to another part of the room?
Where people really need to keep an open mind and be willing to give in is when its more then just an inconvenience for the othere person. Best example of this is if someone will have a full blown anaphylactic reaction that would require something like an epipen to save their life if they are exposed to whatever they are allergic to. If all the pet dander does is make your eyes itch a little, well maybe they can be more flexible about the service animal.

The whole point is we need to be adults and be willing to put others needs in front of our wants.

Exactly! So much exactly, I can't even! Happy, happy me! I'll have to find you a couple of sources, and I struck out one accidentally untrue part, but mostly, yeah! People need to be educated that allergic people are supposed to be moved, to another room, if the allergy is severe enough. If someone will loose taste and smell permanently, or anything else serious, I will leave. I don't want anyone hurt, nor am I the center of the universe.

Here's the source for you. Tippy top. Question 1. You'll see restaurants, Then go to general rules. Question 10 especially.

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html#gen.

Q10. Can a person bring a service animal with them as they go through a salad bar or other self-service food lines?

A. Yes. Service animals must be allowed to accompany their handlers to and through self-service food lines. Similarly, service animals may not be prohibited from communal food preparation areas, such as are commonly found in shelters or dormitories.

Teams can go where food is being served, even in areas where patrons serve themselves. The dog's customary place being out of the way, under a table, once the handler has a seat. Patrons can bring oxygen tanks or concentrators, mobility aids, and other medical devices with them in line. Legally, Service Dogs are as other medical devices are, not animals.

Look under the heading
Inquiries, Exclusions, Charges, and Other Specific Rules Related to Service Animals
https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

4th bullet from the top

• Establishments that sell or prepare food must allow service animals in public areas even if state or local health codes prohibit animals on the premises.

That same link mentions Service Meniature Horses, second to the last heading.

I've found a perfect, fantastic, unbelievably easy way to explain it! Kal-El was never really Clark Kent, because he was never human. He's Kryptonian. He looks in every way human, it's what he does that makes him different. Humans can't fly.

dogs, and mini horses, as in pets and animals, can't mitigate disabilities by doing work or tasks. Service Animals, as in medical equipment, which can be Service Dogs, or Service Mini Horses, have been individually trained to do just that, so they aren't animals lower case, they're Service Animals, capital, medical devices.

Just because my Service Dog is a medical device, doesn't mean he can't make some humans allergic, so I'll keep him in a body suit, as a courtesy to dog allergic people. Legally disablingly allergic people, I'd have to move away from, as a reasonable accommodation for those people's disabilities. As a courtesy, I'd even move away from people with fears of him, even though I don't have to. People with legal psychiatric disabilities related to canis lupus familiaris Serviceus, I'd have to move away from, as a reasonable accommodation of those people's disabilities.

I'll never call the gun toting people in blue costumes to come and force some poor business representative to allow me somewhere I'm not wanted. I'll get my money back and leave. There was one lady who went to jail because she didn't understand that Service Animals had to be allowed in public areas of places that sell or make food, in spite of state or local health codes. Y'all, there was a language barrier there. She spoke Spanish. There was also a cultural difference. She saw Kal-El, medophorically speaking, and said, "Of course he's human!"

Cop said, "Nope, you're going to jail."

She didn't speak English! They should have done a better job explaining! There's a lot of a foreign language in the law, especially for her.

Guns and jail? No, not from me. I'll set them up with the DOJ Service Animal hotline number, as I think it's also got a Spanish option, or if it's someone like ClaudTheBear, who speaks English, but genuinely misunderstood, I'll show them what they're missing.

We've known Service Animals were medical devices since 1992. I bet things are different where she came from. Teach. Don't punish.

Teams. . . Are not. . . Allowed. . . Everybloodywhere! We need to know that!

Here's a list.

http://servicedogcentral.org/content/node/346

There is one case that comes to mind, where a Service Dog was allowed in an operating room. They scrubbed him in, in a manner of speaking, because he could tell his handler was going to seize before the electronic monitors did, and if the handler seized, he'd have died, but if he didn't have the surgery, he'd have died. They had antiseizure drugs waiting, to preempt a seizure, if the dog alerted.

There are also special state laws in Hawaii, cause pretty wildlife, awesome! You know me by now. I'll totally look those up. Every canine gets quarantined when they enter Hawaii, for at least a while, to be sure they don't have anything that could hurt the special wild critters.

 

[SpAzpieSweeTot]

I saw this post on tumblr and thought it was both fun and informative

https://allllltheautism.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F177450887643

Daniel, that's really helpful, and also, precious! Thank you! Y'all, if you will, please re-read or re-listen to post #9, because I'm finally proud of how it is!

I want people to understand this.

"I'm allergic to your mobility aid. Please get it out of here," isn't a thing, in America.

"I'm allergic to your medical device. Let's stay as far apart as possible, and since I'm the one allergic to your medical device, I'll be the one responsible for staying away from it. You're responsible for your issues, which is why you brought your medical device. I'm responsible for my issues, so, that's why I'll stay away," is a thing, in America.

"I'm afraid of your pancreas. Please get it out of here," isn't a thing anywhere that knows what an Assistance Dog is.

"I'm afraid of your blood pressure cuff. Let's stay as far apart as possible, and since I'm the one afraid of your blood pressure cuff, I'll be the one responsible for staying away from it. You're responsible for your issues, which is why you brought your blood pressure cuff. I'm responsible for my issues, so, that's why I'll stay away," is a thing, anywhere that knows what an Assistance Dog is.