People with Disabilities & SD Awareness

1992 Summery:

The Federal Civil Rights Law, ADA, defines a service animal as any animal that is individually trained to perform tasks to benefit an individual with a disability (the disabilities might not be visible) (Title III 4.2300).

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 36, Section 36,104 & Sections 36.302, guarantees a person who is disabled the legal right to be accompanied by a service animal in all areas opened to the general public. The ADA prevails over any Conflicting State / Local Laws, or those Laws that provide lesser protection against discrimination. Public accommodations are NOT Permitted to Require any Type of Identification or Certification of Status to be shown (Title III 4.1300).

DOJ Proposed Amendments to Regulations Implementing ADA

Service dog-animal section:

The Department wishes to clarify the obligations of public accommodations to accommodate individuals with disabilities who use service animals. The Department continues to receive a large number of complaints from individuals with service animals. It appears that many covered entities are confused regarding their obligations under the ADA with regard to individuals with disabilities who use service animals. At the same time, some individuals with impairments–who would not be covered as individuals with disabilities–are claiming that their animals are legitimate service animals, whether fraudulently or sincerely (albeit mistakenly), to gain access to hotels, restaurants, and other places of public accommodation.

Another trend is the use of wild, exotic, or unusual species, many of which are untrained, as service animals. The Department is proposing amendments to its regulation on service animals in the hope of mitigating the apparent confusion. Minimal protection.In the Department’s ADA Business Brief on Service Animals, which was published in 2002, the Department interpreted the minimal protection language within the context of a seizure (i.e., alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure). Although the Department received comments urging it to eliminate the minimal protection language, the Department continues to believe that it should retain the “providing minimal protection” language and interpret the language to exclude so-called “attack dogs” that pose a direct threat to others. Guidance on permissible service animals.In the original regulation implementing title III, “service animal” was defined as “any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal,” and the Department believed, at the time, that leaving the species selection up to the discretion of the person with a disability was the best course of action. Due to the proliferation of animals used by individuals, including wild animals, the Department believes that this area needs some parameters. Therefore, the Department is proposing to eliminate certain species from coverage even if the other elements of the definition are satisfied. Comfort animals vs. psychiatric service animals.Under the Department’s present regulatory language, some individuals and entities have assumed that the requirement that service animals must be individually trained to do work or perform tasks excluded all individuals with mental disabilities from having service animals. Others have assumed that any person with a psychiatric condition whose pet provided comfort to them was covered by the ADA. The Department believes that psychiatric service animals that are trained to do work or perform a task (e.g., reminding its owner to take medicine) for individuals whose disability is covered by the ADA are protected by the Department’s present regulatory approach. Psychiatric service animals can be trained to perform a variety of tasks that assist individuals with disabilities to detect the onset of psychiatric episodes and ameliorate their effects. Tasks performed by psychiatric service animals may include reminding the handler to take medicine; providing safety checks, or room searches, or turning on lights for persons with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; interrupting self-mutilation by persons with dissociative identity disorders; and keeping disoriented individuals from danger.

The Department is proposing new regulatory text in § 36.104 to formalize its position on emotional support/comfort animals, which is that “animals whose sole function is to provide emotional support, comfort, therapy, companionship, therapeutic benefits, or promote emotional well-being are not service animals.” The Department wishes to state, however, that the exclusion of emotional support animals from ADA coverage does not mean that individuals with psychiatric, cognitive, or mental disabilities cannot use service animals. The Department proposes specific regulatory text in § 36.104 to make this clear: “The term service animal includes individually trained animals that do work or perform tasks for the benefit of individuals with disabilities, including psychiatric, cognitive, and mental disabilities.” This language simply clarifies the Department’s longstanding position and is not a new position.

The Department’s rule is based on the assumption that the title II and title III regulations govern a wider range of public settings than the settings that allow for emotional support animals. The Department recognizes, however, that there are situations not governed exclusively by the title II and title III regulations, particularly in the context of residential settings and employment, where there may be compelling reasons to permit the use of animals whose presence provides emotional support to a person with a disability. Accordingly, other federal agency regulations governing those situations may appropriately provide for increased access for animals other than service animals.

Modification in policies, practices, or procedures.The preamble to § 36.302 of the current title III regulation states that the regulatory language was intended to provide the “broadest feasible access” to individuals with service animals while acknowledging that, in rare circumstances, accommodating service animals may not be required if it would result in a fundamental alteration of the nature of the goods or services the public accommodation provides or the safe operation of the public accommodation. 56 FR 35544, 35565 (July 26, 1991). In order to clarify this provision, the Department is incorporating into the proposed regulation guidance that it has provided previously through technical assistance. Proposed training standards.The Department has always required that service animals be individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, but has never imposed any type of formal training requirements or certification process. While some groups have urged the Department to modify this position, the Department does not believe such a modification would serve the array of individuals with disabilities who use service animals. Detailed regulatory text changes and the Department’s response to public comments on these issues and others are discussed below in the definition section, § 36.104, and the section on modifications in policies, practices, and procedures, § 36.302(c).


ADA Proposal

I too was so pleased that the government has listen to us about the formalization issue, and kicked it out of the equation. So glad that they didn't buckle under pressure from small organizations.

From my understanding of set language you do not have to worry about breed restrictions. The only restriction one has to think about is that exotic and farm animals are excluded from becoming a trained service animal. Only domesticated animals are allowed to be trained to become service animals. The only issue that is not quite clear is if mini horses are classified as farm animals or domestic animals! We will have to see when the final writings are put into place if they added this within.

I have been noticing that some bloggers have been really up in arms now after the fact. There is one that and I cannot be sure if it's facts or fiction, the individual claims that DOJ leaked about the law. Claiming that now the only type of service animal is domestic dogs. This would mean no other domestic animal could be trained as a service animal. Again I am not sure if that is really facts. Although they are saying contact DOJ and complain. However for some reason these individuals in my eyes did not go and complain when the government asked for public comments in Aug. Where were they! If one thought that all animals could be a service animal if one could train them then it should be. So my question would an elephant, a lion , a bear could have the right temperament and compatibility to be able to be in the public. Nope because in the same laws that protect our civil rights has to have a balance as well for the general public. (ie reasonable accommodations, not to be a threat in public, not to alter the function of the business). Those species I have mention would do all that. One Major would be a Major panic attacks and people flying out of the stores, breaking things to get the heck out of there.

I could see where the Amendment Act that was signed into law, excluding exotic animals and even farm animals. However mini horses could be considered as domestic animals as well as pot belly pigs. The monkeys are exotic but then nobody has a clear fact that the monkeys are stable out in public. My understanding is that these monkeys trained are for at homes now. Don't actually know if that's facts either.

Nevertheless I tried posting on these blogs about what I believe from reading off the government sites. Below is what I wanted to post, nevertheless it has gone bye byes by the way of the dotto bird. For my post isn't up there on this one blogger so I am putting it here.



http://scienceblogs.com/culturedish/2009/01/newsflash_doj_ada_changes_leak.php If you want to read other comments. Just remember we really do not actually know if the wording of what President George W. Bush Signed into law will be changed from domestic animals to domestic dogs. I'm sure once it comes out it will be added to this forum for all.

Now do not get me wrong I have no issue with some various species such as a mini horse, monkey, cats and pot belly pigs, even maybe a bird. However I do think that other species such as a snake, rats, skunks, etc. shouldn't be included. Reason why is that where is the training and could a handler control them in a stressful situation. In other words I have never seen such animals as having the right temperament nor the human could comprehend what they maybe thinking. I do not believe that when our forefathers helped wrote the ADA that they were thinking that all types of species would be true service animals. We as service animal teams have responsibility as well. Other people do have civil rights too. It's bad enough that people try using the allergies and the fear factor with dogs but then have service animals such as snakes, lions and bears. OK so maybe nobody tried the lion and a bear yet but I do know about the snakes and skunks.

Ferrets I think I read some place that they need lots of sleep time so how are they able to be trained tasks. Although they do alert, but alert only isn't a trainable task. Alert dogs are trained to respond which makes them a service animal. If they only alert they wouldn't be a service animal. This was also brought up about 3 years ago. And trainers from all over had explain alert is a big plus but the training one does is to train them to respond to their partners.

OK sorry I vented a bit I guess or rattle on.

I went back to that bloggers site yesterday as I like to continue reading to see what others may have said and I was shock! Literately shocked because guess what post was there! You got it it was my post that I sent Jan. 8. And the blogger finally put it up with links and everything. Although nobody responded nor did the blogger when I was basically asking questions. If you are going to state some facts at least state where you got the facts in the first place. But I am very happy that the blogger posted it. Better late then never. Maybe the blogger or friend saw my response here.

Proposed ADA Regulations Withdrawn from OMB Review

Resource just came in: DOJ Withdraw Draft Final Rules

On January 21, 2009, the Department of Justice notified the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that the Department has withdrawn its draft final rules to amend the Department’s regulations implementing title II and title III from the OMB review process. This action was taken in response to a memorandum from the President’s Chief of Staff directing the Executive Branch agencies to defer publication of any new regulations until the rules are reviewed and approved by officials appointed by President Obama. No final action will be taken by the Department with respect to these rules until the incoming officials have had the opportunity to review the rulemaking record. Incoming officials will have the full range of rule-making options available to them under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Withdrawal of the draft final rules does not affect existing ADA regulations. Title II and title III entities must continue to follow the Department's existing ADA regulations, including the ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

With this withdraw of the final register of the Amendment I am wondering if this would also be a good time to voice ones opinions now. Letting the government know how we feel about the certain restrictions with service animals. Such as excluding all types of animals except dogs. I do agree with some restrictions but not to the point that you cannot have a mini horse, a cat, or a monkey that is trained.

I agree this would be the time to actually voice ones opininion about the wording and definition of a service animal. Because I do not think there should be such a restriction to the point of only dogs. As I know several individuals with mini horses, and cats. Although I feel that exotic animals should be dismissed from the equation.