Stricter Rule for Service Dogs Goes Against the ADA

I am pleased to introduce Sarah Albert as a guest blogger today. Sarah teaches companion animal courses for the animal sciences department at the University of Illinois. One of the courses she leads each semester introduces the 600 students enrolled to important topics involving people and their animals, and one thing they discuss every semester is service dogs and legislation.

by Sarah Albert

Sarah Albert and her dog, Jax.

Sarah Albert and her dog, Jax.

I’ve been discussing the importance of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with my students for years, especially the laws meant to protect individuals with disabilities and their ability to use service dogs in public to aid them.

Imagine my surprise then when I found myself stumbling upon a newly introduced bill in the Illinois state legislature. The bill, HB 3162, would require the department of Financial and Professional Regulation to establish a service dog license program in our state and would require that same department to come up with rules and guidelines for this licensing program. If passed, this new law would:

    • Require the dog respond to basic obedience and the skilled task 90% of the time on the first command in both the home and public places;
    • Require the dog demonstrate basic obedience skills with both voice commands and hand signals (sitting, laying down, walking in a controlled manner, staying in place, and coming when called);
    • Require that the dog meets all of the standards laid about by the Assistance Dogs International group in public, and also being well behaved in the home;
    • Require that the dog is trained to perform at least three tasks for the disability;
    • Require the dog/handler to have a license card with a photograph of the dog and the names of the dog and handler;
    • Require a service dog in public to wear a cape, harness, backpack, or other similar equipment with a logo that identifies it as an assistance;
    • Require dogs be spayed/neutered and be vaccinated as determined by the dog’s veterinarian and applicable laws

At first glance, this may seem like a good idea, especially considering the string of fake service dogs entering public places. The rise in people bringing their pets to public places (posing as service dogs) is both dangerous and disrespectful. It jeopardizes the rights of individuals with true disabilities.

Individuals with disabilities have had to fight for their rights; rights that were finally afforded to them with the passage of the ADA in 1990. The ADA defines service animals as a “dog that has individually been trained to perform a task to aid an individual with a disability.” The law does not require a central licensing system, harnesses or vests on animals, professional training by approved organizations, or documentation of a disability.

So, why would this law be such a bad thing? Maybe we need to crack down on these fakers. To understand this question better, let’s consider three reasons why the ADA left a lot of these requirements out:

  1. Not all individuals with a disability have easy access to a medical doctor, and some cannot afford a visit to a medical doctor. A person with a diagnosed seizure disorder, for example, might not see a doctor regularly and making a doctor’s appointment just to get an official letter could be expensive.
  2. The requirement to get this license and equipment to identify an animal as a service dog. What costs fall upon the individual with the disability (a fee to apply, the cost of a vest or harness that is specially made)? What costs are required of the taxpayer to fund someone to test dogs and hand out licenses? Cost and confidentiality for the person with the disability is a huge concern – and one the ADA intended to avoid as it does not require medical documentation or vests for dogs.
  3. The obedience and skills required are too subjective

Let me try to explain item #3 on the list by taking a look at our seizure detection dog again as an example.

This individual who suffers from seizures may not have started out with a specially trained service dog. They may have a dog that helps them by alerting them to their condition — this could have been a pet who started to alert on its own. Alerting about seizures could become its specialized task (the one the ADA requires) but under this new proposed Illinois legislation, what three tasks will this dog be required to perform? How will they showcase the dog can do this on command if an impending seizure is needed to trigger the dog’s task? How will we ask a quadriplegic to use hand signals with his service dog? Or an autistic child to give perfect verbal commands under pressure to their service animal?

These seem like unnecessary demands for individuals who truly need these animals, and let’s also consider this: Dogs are still, well…dogs. They’re not robots who perform on command at a perfect rate. Heck, even robots mess up sometimes.

The expectation that a dog would be able to perform close to perfect in all situations is unreasonable. Even the most highly trained dogs are not always able to do this. It’s hard to know what the department will be looking for, and what will happen if someone with a true disability is denied their service animal simply because the dog had an off day.

With only these points in mind, it’s apparent this law is extremely harmful to individuals with disabilities, and completely goes against the intention of the ADA to protect their rights.

Stay tuned for a future post by Sarah Albert where she’ll outline some ideas to address the increase in fake service dogs.


 

Comments may not reflect Easterseals' policies or positions.


Please read our community guidelines when posting comments.


  1. David Says:

    Most of what is in this proposal is in direct conflict of the ADA so the law that give the person the most benefit is the one you follow. Yes I do believe that Service Dogs SHOULD be licences in there state and should be each year along with their standard dog license. As far as the ADI is concerned I would not listen to them what so ever. I am a Service Dog Instructor Trainer in NJ and ALL MY DOGS EXCEED THE ADI’S requirements. As per ID cards and vests, again the ADA does not require either, so Federal law would trump state law. I always found it amazing that people would go and say my dog is a service dog and it knows 3 tasks! I training service dog (who start at 8 weeks old, and they stay with their training partner) by the time we are done say hypothetically in a year the dog (depending on how many illness’s/disabilities) the person has could be in the 50-100 range. We task train to asist with all of the personas issues not just one. And there is no way that a dog with 3 task, in my opinion, should be considered a Service Dog. Also you can not have someone like a person with a seizure disorder “show you” because their medication is working, etc. Having someone intentionally made to have an anxiety/panic attack, have a seizure, have visual and auditory hallucinations, etc just so you can see what the dog is trained to do is in my opinion unethical. If Illinois’s state legislature even passes this law, technically the ADA law give the most freedoms, so in my opinion its not going to work. I am sure that if the legislature where to “license them (voluntarily) and then establish laws specifically pertaining to “people that misrepresent a dog, that has not been training specifically for the purpose of being a service dog would be quilty of:…….” All service dogs register with no fee. individuals that have “program” dogs, need a letter from the training agency or professional trainer. This special tag worn on the collar would allow business owners, police officers, etc that the dog is cleared. And nothing in this law do I see anything about service dogs visiting from other states or countries. They are untouchable because they are visitors? People everyday “use the system” buy the vest and ID, with the expressed intention of taking the dog on the plane (to avoid the fee) and then walk about your city shopping. Again, my dogs all have ID’s with my name the dogs information, control number etc. my phone number is on the card and any L.E. official is always welcome to call for verification.


  2. DeEtta Duckett Says:

    It would be interesting if they tried that in Florida. What a fight they would have. And they would have to really educate the medical profession. Doctors have no clue what the difference is between a service dog, emotional support animal and a therspy dog. For example; on Craigslist, a doctor’s placed an add “Emotional support & therapy animal”. Have you get prescribed as an emotional support therapy companion and never be alone again. Dr. Drake has been prescribing his patients their beloved pet as part of their treatment, etc. What is wrong with people these days. I would like to get rid of my disability. Go back to the normal life I had many many years ago. I am grateful that I have a dog so that I can live a partially normal life now. And to see this on Craigslist it’s appalling.


  3. Beth Finke Says:

    Interesting. I do hope Illinois legislators are looking into what other states are doing…


  4. Beth Finke Says:

    There has long been a concern among people with disabilities that if average folks start passing off their pets as service dogs, the lack of proper training could result in poor behavior in public places. That, in turn, could cause businesses and public places to be skeptical of all of us, i.e., lend to more scrutiny when people with disabilities who need their dogs to do tasks for us try to get our dogs into stores and libraries and on public transportation and such . This proposed law in Illinois tells me this is already happening…


  5. Beth Finke Says:

    You know, I’d never thought of that — imagine needing a different i.d. card for every state.


  6. Tima Says:

    I believe it was Illinois that at a rest area we were stopped by attendants who insisted on seeing proof and ID for my service dog. I promptly quoted ADA, produced an ADA informational wallet card that I carry. They stated it was their supervisor who told them they had to see the dogs ID cardamd implied that it was a state requirement. That being said I responded that I was not a resident of that state and was just traveling thru. The law could not be applicable to out of state residents because how can an out of state resident obtain a state liscensed SD ID card? I believe that if this were to go to court federal law would trump state law. Otherwise service dogs would have to obtain various liscensing etc in every state, county and city in the US, which is impossible and undue hardship for the disabled owner and could possibly be considered discrimination. This is why we have ADA laws.


  7. Doug Says:

    How could the “Problem of fake service dogs” possibly rise to the importance that a law be passed ? I have a genuine service dog and I could not care less if some dumbass tried to pass his mutt off as a service dog. People need to mind their own business. We have become a nation of busybodies


  8. Dawn Scheu Says:

    Michigan tried to do this. Please look at Michigan State new laws as of 2016. Michigan does have a “volintary” registry. To make it mandatory is a violation of ADA. It requires a Dr Note for registry. I expecially hate this as they have registered a few ESA as service dogs. I also hate that there is no proof of training so it’s actuly making untrained dogs legal. (Individual my opinion making faking it legal). They did make it aginst the law to take fake service dog without meeting ADA requirements so that part is good. I can now tell people it is illegal to pass your pet off as a highly trained service animal. Utah also has a similar law on the books to be voted on and Colorado is looking at it to.
    Instead of picking on the people with disabilities who fight every day just to get through a day they need to pass tougher laws on fake service animals.


  9. Beth Finke Says:

    DawnMarie, glad you wrote, and thank you for reaching out to us. Just like with David, I will forward this to our Information And Referral Department and they will contact you personally .


  10. DawnMarie McCollum Says:

    I am a 59 year old woman in Massachusetts, who has a letter frequenting an accommodation for a sizable service dog in the elderly / handicapped housing project where I live.
    My daughter got me a puppy which was a good candidate. I started out self training and did well up to basic obedience. I am not comfortable taking him into public places. Is there funding available to help me further his training? I have PTSD, Agoraphobia, severe Anxiety disorder, and I am Epileptic.


  11. Beth Finke Says:

    Thank you for reaching out to us, David. I will forward it to our Information And Referral Department and they will contact you personally .

    U


  12. Beth Finke Says:

    Marlene, I have Type 1 diabetes, too. An article in Diabetes Forecast http://www.diabetesforecast.org/2014/11-nov/diabetes-alert-dogs-buyer.html says there’s no clinicial-trial evidence that shows that dogs can really sense low blood sugars or whether the dogs’ sensing and alerting abilities are reliable and effective. The article warns that Finding an alert dog can be a long, expensive process but does give suggestions and recommendations you might find helpful. Not sure what a service dog could do for someone with leukemia, though…. .


  13. David Gletne Says:

    I am a Veteran, with an honorable discharge. I have an 8 year old dog and no one else in the world to call a friend. I have been trying to get a disability going, but cant find anyone to help me locally in Tillamook Oregon. I do have HUD VASH however, but absolutely no income, and no one will hire a crippled up 60 something year old in this small town. Not to mention, there aren’t a lot of jobs I have skills for, or are physically able to perform. I am fighting both severe physical and mental problems right now, and need help


  14. Marlene Gadomski Says:

    Hi how do I go about getting a sevice dog for my husband who is a diabetic and has leukemia. You can reach me on my mobile phone at (708) 921-5574.

    Marlene Gadomski


Leave a Reply