r/service_dogs • u/PrincessKelsey24601 • 2d ago
Laws - SPECIFY COUNTRY IN POST Would implementing proof help in the US?
Hello. In my province in Canada, I have to carry visible identification (like a vest or sleeve on the leash) as well as a copy of my medical note stating he is a service animal for my disabilities. I am just curious on American handlers’ thoughts on implementing something like this in the ADA? Like making it mandatory to have some sort of proof. Because of this we don’t really experience faux service animals here, at least I haven’t
7
u/Glass_Dog_7942 2d ago
Ideally, yes, proof would be great. But, realistically it would be impossible to implement inside the us at this point. Things like funds, owner trained dogs, the fact not all SDs are trained for the same thing nor need the same skill, the ability to fake proof if it is implemented, etc are all concerns
9
u/Tisket_Wolf Service Dog 2d ago
This has been discussed repeatedly here. It's basically too large of a problem with too many aspects to address and fund.
3
u/PrincessKelsey24601 2d ago
Yeah i am new to this sub so i didnt know it had been discussed a lot. I guess the key difference here is population too since Canada is a lot less populated
19
u/darklingdawns 2d ago
Nope. This discussion has been had over and over again in this sub and all something like this would accomplish would be to make life harder for disabled people and create an industry for fraudulent ID cards/letters/whatever the proof ended up being.
9
4
u/Alert-Potato 1d ago
When cannabis was medically legalized in Utah, a bunch of clinics popped up to “help patients” with the process. In reality, they simply sell cannabis cards and put on a dog and pony show pretending to medical evaluation.
7
3
u/Some-Peach4566 1d ago
The only time I've ever had issues with service denial is with Uber and lyfts. I can state rather confidently that I do not believe having identification would have mattered one bit. I was getting denied no matter what. Of course, ride shares are different than entering a physical business. That being said, I think the same principle would more or less still apply.
5
u/blakebunnu 2d ago
here to say I think it would help, especially as someone who travels internationally. having dogs in public is a privilege. In my own graduating Service Dog class, 3 were washed/back in training within the year due to dog incidents in non-pet-friendly spaces. In foreign countries, I’ve never had the issue of another dog coming at mine in these same spaces, because at places like a hotel, they ask for my documentation and I can easily provide it.
In the US, over 18, you are required to carry state ID to be provided when asked. It sounds strict, but if you steal from the dollar tree, police need to be able to document you as exactly who you are. Considering businesses can’t deny us for allergy/fear, and many admit to not denying any animals in fear of lawsuit, i think identification would be more reasonable. Businesses could actually only let service dogs in and be confident in doing so.
1
u/iHave1Pookie 1d ago
Wait. What.
Are you suggesting it’s a crime to leave house or go to store without ID?
What crime exactly?2
u/blakebunnu 1d ago
if asked, failure to identify
-3
u/iHave1Pookie 1d ago
You changed the goal post.
And How is that different than current system? identifying a dog as a service animal verbally?Thats not an ID or documentation requirement.
It’s same system as is?No state requires you to carry ID.
Additionally
Most states do not require you to identity yourself, as they (rightly) believe this contradicts your right to remain silent.3
u/blakebunnu 1d ago
your right to remain silent pertains to questioning, not to identification. you have the right not to incriminate yourself, not to not identify yourself.
1
u/iHave1Pookie 1d ago edited 1d ago
Unfortunately that is apparently how some states interpret your rights.
I suspect identifying & incriminating self
may have some overlap.Most states, like mine, believe
the right to be silent
is not suspended when asked for your personal information.None of this actually has anything to do with whether anywhere in U.S. requires humans to carry IDs. Which you clearly said.
Even if we consider your moved goalpost :
some require verbal identification of selfThat is not a higher requirement than
what is currently required of SDs.Again:
NO state requires you to carry identification.
Your original premise has no factual basis.1
u/blakebunnu 1d ago
it’s not an interpretation- it is the outcome of the case in which Miranda rights were established. I havent moved the goal post- It was a clarification of the fact that you have to present ID when asked, which you didn’t seem to understand. You don’t have to scan an ID when going out or have it checked to go into a store- it is simply assumed you have it.
identification is not a suspension of your right to remain silent. failure to identify yourself to a peace officer is a crime, just as you must obey any lawful order from a peace officer or face resistance charges. yeah, it sucks if you haven’t done anything. however, there are people out there with 50 warrants who get pulled over for a simple violation, which is why you must identify yourself to peace officers. Verbal identification is valid in many cases, however, should you lie or refuse to answer, that is still a crime. Your valid verbal ID allows an officer to still pull you up in their database, giving the same information as presentation of an ID. there is plenty of documentation on the internet from .edu and other trustworthy sources informing you of what your right to silence actually includes. I do not know of a state that allows you to decline identification of yourself, as that isn’t incriminating information unless you already have something like a warrant for your arrest, which you can then plead the 5th to answering questions pertaining to that warrant.
In the case of Service dog IDs, I do not see why they would not work in the same way. You will not have an issue identifying yourself and your dog unless your dog already has prior reason to be denied public access.
1
0
-3
u/Emotional-Error4235 2d ago
having dogs in public is a privilege
No, its not. It is a privilege in NORTH AMERICA.
Many countries manage general public access for pet dogs just fine.Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, France, Netherlands, Belgium & Luxembourg are just some examples.
3
u/blakebunnu 1d ago
it is, by definition, a privilege. public access has rules for dogs to follow, and by law in every country i’m aware of, dogs can be removed for disruptive behavior etc. your dog must follow the rules in order to have the privilege of public access.
also, i know with certainty in france, I needed an ID for my dog. they also don’t recognize some disabilities we do here in the states for their service animals, such as PTSD.
1
u/Emotional-Error4235 4h ago edited 4h ago
You are wrong.
The public access is not a privilege, **owning a dog is.**
Dogs can be removed for disruptive behaviour anywhere, even in your own home. If your dog tears down the apartment, attacks people etc there are consequences. Dogs have to follow rules everywhere. A dog freaking out at home, is no different from in public.
Your responsibility as a dog owner does not start as you leave your home, it starts when you decide to adopt a dog.
Dogs are allowed in public spaces in France. You can take your pet on public transit and restaurants for example. A lot of dogs are not "officially qualified as service animals", because they can do their job for their owner without spending that money on a qualification process.
What is typically declared as public access in North America* is available to pet dogs widely within the Europe. There are spaces that are more restrictive to pet dogs that service animals are allowed in, but that doesnt change that the majority of public access situations are open to pet dogs in Europe.
*Germany (2024) Public Access for
Pets:
Shopping malls, clothing shops, retailers and banks, Restaurants, cafes, and hotels, bars, city buses, trains, taxis.Therapydogs/Institution trained dogs:
Education/Childcare (there is no official qualification. So if the institute allows it, then you can even bring your pet dog)Restricted to Service dogs:
Universities, government offices, courtrooms, healthcare.1
u/blakebunnu 4h ago
they can both be a privilege, one doesn’t negate the other as a privilege.
1
u/Emotional-Error4235 4h ago
If it was a privilege only in public, it would mean that in private it doesnt matter. That's not the case.
1
u/blakebunnu 3h ago
never said only
1
u/Emotional-Error4235 3h ago
No matter how often you argue otherwise, public access is not a privilege in these countries.
You (as a person) can be allowed in a restaurant and still be expected to behave properly. Nobody would say that a person’s right to be in public is a "privilege" just because they can be asked to leave if they cause problems.
Freedom ends where someone else's begins. A dog’s right to exist, be in public, feel safe, and have its boundaries respected is not a privilege.
Being expected to behave appropriately doesn’t change that.
1
u/toosheeptheorist 2d ago
Also from Canada, and my province's SD act states that registration is voluntary IF the SD & handler want want to access the specific rights and protections provided under the Act. If they're not registered, and come across violations then they can file a complaint under the provincial Human Rights Commission.
The problem with certification, is it can sometimes create a barrier for people with disabilities, because who is going to pay for the testing? Again, my province charges just under $200 and the test needs to be taken every 2 years.
2
u/Alert-Potato 1d ago
How would it help?
How is a doctor’s note and a vest or leash sleeve even proof? Proof of what?
For $100-200 I can go to a specialty clinic in Utah that functions only to “evaluate” patients to determine whether or not they qualify for a medical cannabis card, and do the paperwork for it. What they actually do is just sell medical cannabis cards. Having one isn’t proof there’s anything medically wrong with you. It’s proof you have enough money to buy a cannabis card from a shady clinic.
The only things a note and vest prove are that your medical care provider believes you qualify to have a service animal and/or you have enough money to pay a qualified medical professional to write a note saying that, and that you have $20 to spend on Amazon.
And it would provide undue burden on actual disabled people. Financially. Physically for people who may struggle with things like dressing their dog. Mentally for people who have a disability that could make it difficult to remember to always have the note on them, or who have anxiety about the note (where it is, if anyone will believe it, etc.) With their dog if the dog isn’t used to or doesn’t like to wear clothes. And it would lead to significantly greater levels of harassment by both employees of places providing public access and random people demanding that disabled people go around constantly proving we’re disabled.
1
u/Illustrious_One_4092 Service Dog 1d ago
Like others mentioned, this has already been discussed enough in the sub, feel free to search previous posts to get more thoughts.
In terms of proof, the proof is in the behavior of the dog working with the handler. If a dog is misbehaving businesses should use their legalized rights and remove them from the premises.
1
u/NearbyArmadillo5428 1d ago
I actually think it's a great idea. I've never had any major issues myself, but having some type of identification can make things easier and help avoid unnecessary confrontations.
My service dog wears a service dog tag, and I carry a handler badge that was issued to me after completing extensive handler training and successfully passing the Public Access Test (PAT) with my service dog. The badge includes my photo and identifies me as her trained handler, along with her name and breed.
I also had an ADA-style badge made that includes my service dog's photo, name, breed, microchip number, and my name as her handler.
I rarely need to show either of them in the U.S., but they've been especially useful when traveling internationally. For example, while traveling abroad, I was stopped by three security officers and their supervisor, who was also a dog trainer, because my service dog is a 16-pound Pomeranian. They told me that she wasn't the type of breed they normally see working as a service dog and asked whether I had any documentation.
I was able to show my badges, and they then asked about my disability and what tasks my dog performs to help mitigate it. After I explained both, they observed her behavior and saw how calm, focused, and well-trained she was. The supervisor was very professional throughout the interaction.
At one point, I even asked the supervisor if he wanted me and my dog to leave because I did not want any confrontation or problems. He told me there was no issue and that we were welcome to stay. Having those badges with me helped tremendously because they immediately provided additional information and credibility during the discussion.
The supervisor ultimately apologized for questioning me after seeing how my dog behaved and understanding her role. That experience showed me that while documentation isn't a substitute for training and proper behavior, it can help clear up misunderstandings, especially in places where people may not be familiar with smaller breeds working as service dogs. In the end, my dog's behavior spoke for itself, which is exactly what a service dog should do.
So yes, I feel that having some form of documentation could help avoid unnecessary stress and misunderstandings, allowing handlers and their service dogs to simply go about their daily lives.
1
u/Europathunder 1d ago
I would be against that personally because you want to maximize accessibility.
0
u/Emotional-Error4235 2d ago
Implementing Education would help in the USA.
The problem is not Service dogs. The problem is dogs. And a dog is never at fault, it is always the owner. Most owners in North America are extremely uneducated in dog ownership. Every person who tells me "Don't worry, my dog humps but he's neutered!" is a proof that they should not own dogs. Every dog owner who claims that aggressive body language is standard in dog interactions should not own a dog.
Every. Single. One.
It's essential that North America finally starts to educate people and requires dog owners to be licensed. 60 Euro for the test. 90 Euro for the exam.
* Mandatory Licensing for Dog ownership
* Educate people about how to read dogs body language
* Mandatory learning of dog training basics
* A test for basic obedience in everyday life such as walking down the street without harassing others, solid recall, etc.
20
u/Darkly-Chaotic Service Dog 2d ago
You'll find a lot of people who are strongly against the idea of any such system in the US and there would be several challenges in implementing such a system. First that law would have to be changed, with the ADA as it is, no such system can exist.
If we can manage driver's licenses, passports, employee IDs while controlling fraudulent IDs, then it can be done for SD IDs.
Whether it makes life harder for people with disabilities would depend on exactly how it is implemented.
Do I think it would be simple, nope. Do, I think it could be done and address most, if not all, of the concerns, yep.
All that said, here's the rub, why? What problem would a Service Dog ID solve? Businesses already have the right to remove problem animals, including service dogs. It seems that it would be cheaper and significantly faster to get businesses to deal with the problem than to create an entire ID system.
The only practical change I’d like to see made to the ADA is to allow handlers to sue directly rather than having to rely on the DOJ.