promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
Kirsten asked in PetsDogs · 10 years ago

What do you think of the new definition of "service animal" under the ADA?

July 23, 2010, the Attorney General signed the Final Rule for the changes in the Title II and Title III Regulations for the ADA, including changing the definition of "service animal."

This change will become effective 6 months after it is published.

Here it is folks:

"Service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the handler´s disability. Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to, assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, providing non-violent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a seizure, alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors. The crime deterrent effects of an animal´s presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition."

Is it what you expected? Do you love it? Hate it? How will it effect you personally?

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/reg2_2010...

Update:

This is basically a clarification of the old definition, which is, "Service animal means any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including, but not limited to, guiding individuals with impaired vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, or fetching dropped items."

There were some abuses with strange species being used as well as attack dogs being claimed as service dogs.

I'm happy and relieved with the changes. I think it will reduce at least some of the abuses.

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I am very glad the government is working to get rid of public access for monkeys, reptiles, birds, farm animals, etc.. Living in California I have encountered a veritable zoo/farm yard of service animals most of which were not house broken and reacted negatively to my service dog. I am slightly worried about trained in home service animals like Helping Hands monkeys that may no longer get exceptions to local ordinances about keeping exotics in residential areas.

    Source(s): Service dog handler
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    I love the new definition, especially since it finally specifically states service DOG (well, and service pony, but I'm not touching that). Some of these people.....service chickens, monkeys, cats, goats, horses, snakes.....it's been ridiculous.

    I'm also thrilled that they clarified that service dogs are for more than just guide and mobility. It blows that so many people are so hostile towards users of psychiatric service dogs. They are just as important as any other service dog. And they aren't the ONLY type that can be faked. Just one of the easiest (allergy and medical alert dogs are pretty darn easy to fake as well).

    I do still wish that there was a standard testing and federal certification system, though. I think it would REALLY cut down on the fakers, and would make life better all around for service dog users. Seeing as how most people who try to pass their pets off as service dogs couldn't even pass a CGC. There's no way they'd be able to pass a service dog public access test, and they'd have to prove the dogs are trained to do something besides wag their tails.

    So overall, I think it's an AMAZING start. There's still room for a little more improvement, but it's going to be a great change.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Susan
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    First of all, everyone has coverage now. No hospital can refuse to treat you. Some people do not have insurance, but that does not mean they don't get treated. To answer the question of why a private system is better than a socialized system, let me put it this way: Socialized option: you pay $100 per month, whether you are sick or not. When you get sick, you go to the one and only place you can go, and accept the one and only treatment you are allowed. When you get crappy service, that's too bad because there are no other options, unless you are a millionaire that can afford private treatment. Private option: you can choose not to buy insurance, so you only pay when you are sick, or you can buy insurance if you choose. When you get sick you can choose from many different places to get and choose from a variety of treatments. When you get crappy service, you can stop using United Healthcare and instead choose Blue Cross, Humana, Aetna, etc. Anybody, not just millionaires will have access to whatever treatments they can afford. Why on God's green Earth would anybody choose the socialized option? Why would you ever choose a monopoly over the freedom to choose? Would you ever want to make Wal-mart the ONLY store you can buy from and close all the rest down? No, that's retarded. Then why would you do that to your health care? You people are supposed to be pro-choice, so why are you violently opposed to having a choice in health care?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    They finally signed it! It's been floating out there for a while now! It won't affect me at all as the only change it made was limiting service animals to dogs.

    I'm ok with it. From the research I've done, for the mini horses used, the working lifestyle isn't conducive to the life the mini horses need. The monkey's caused a lot of problems in public and even the programs that trains them only does so for home placement. As for "service" snakes...don't get me started.

    ETA:

    I just read the whole thing. It does make a prevision to allow mini horses. What I particularly like is that it reinforces the validity of work and spells out that service dogs are exempt from local breed bans!

    On requiring testing:

    I'm glad that they don't require it because the number of people qualified to properly administer and judge such a test is very few, and those tend to be concentrated in areas where there are programs. There entire states, like mine, were there isn't anyone qualified to administer such a test. Also, what would the test require? Service dogs for people who live in big cities have a different skill set necessary than those that live in rural areas. Besides, if a service animal isn't behaving properly, they can be removed from the place of business. So, its not like businesses are held hostage to faker SDs. It would create many more problems for the disabled than it would solve.

    Source(s): service dog handler/owner trainer.
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    well "service dog" has become a heavily abused definition and SOMETHING had to be done. but tell me

    "helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors." but ALSO NOT "The crime deterrent effects of an animal´s presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition."

    this is murky and seem to say for example a autism support dog both IS and IS NOT a service dog by the definition.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    So far I'm liking most of what I'm reading. It is taking a while to work my way through it. I must say the only thing so far that I'm not really excited about is that minature horses are still accepted. But it gets rid of the service snakes, rabbits, pigs, and the rest of the zoo.

    And I love the part about the dog needing to be trained real tasks and clarifying no more "feel good" and "comfort" being tasks.

    Source(s): Advocate for real Service Dogs and their Handlers
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    I like how they were more specific in stating where service dog are allowed in hospital access. Hopefully that will help resolve the problems with that type of access denial .

    Personally I am glad to see the exotic monkeys, chickens , snakes , goats and other various oddball animals will be gone from public access situations.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    I think dogs should have to be registered and pass a test to be service dogs. Anyone can say their dog is a physciatric service dog.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    how is that different from the old definition?

    specifically what do the changes mean to you?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.