A Note About Registries in Service Dog

Oh, the service dog community… I swear, the more I get to know the greater service dog community, the more I think these are a whole lot of people who are attracted to drama and the attention they get, even if they claim they hate it. In this case, it all comes back (once again) to those damn registries.

This one started with an ad in a dog-related magazine. One of the registries took out a full page and a half page ad in this magazine. The service dog community flipped out. How could this magazine be encouraging these scam sites? How could they be encouraging people with coupon codes to support these sites? Demonize this magazine because they’re promoting these sites which actively hurt the service dog community!

Before I break anything else down, can I first say that clearly they have no idea how marketing and ad space works… When a magazine, or really any company, sells an ad, they don’t spend a lot of time vetting the company that wants to advertise with them. Basically it falls into two major categories. Is this ad in any way violating law? Is this ad appropriate for the audiences targeted by this magazine? For example, an ad for overt prostitution would be right out, because it’s an ad for illegal activity. An ad for a sex toy shop wouldn’t be appropriate in a magazine geared towards families, that parents may read in the presence of their kids. Well, it might, if it was really discrete, but you get the idea. Occasionally this is expanded to political agenda, because they just want to keep their nose clean of the politics and not isolate any of their target market, but that’s not always a factor. Generally companies don’t give a damn who is putting what in their ad space. They approve the general content, but they don’t cast an opinion on what the company is selling or what they’re doing. I mean, I could take out an ad that has nothing but a full-page picture of Nika that reads “World’s Greatest Service Dog!” No product for sale, no website, no other information, maybe not even her name. Or maybe I get real wild and I post her Instagram on there… The point is, if I’m willing to pay the fees to have that ad, most companies will just let me do it. They don’t care who advertises with them, so long as it’s not going to isolate too many of their audience and they’re getting their advertising fee. “But they published a coupon code!” So what? They paid for that ad space and they can put whatever they want in there, and if that ad contains a coupon code, so long as it doesn’t violate any of the company’s policies, they’re entitled. And if they refuse to let this company publish a coupon code, they better be refusing to let all companies publish coupon codes, because otherwise they could end up with a lawsuit.

So lesson on marketing aside, someone mentioned that they published an article about this particular service dog registry program. Just because I had to see what people are flipping out over, I read the article. The interviewer is either uneducated or clearly trying to get them to trip up. “What should pet owners know about your company?” The person answering the interview questions has clearly been coached on what to say without incriminating their company, always speaking about the advantages of registration, never once directly stating it is required (though leaving a loose implication that it is, nothing actionable as misinformation), and always being very clear to state that this service is available to make the lives of disabled people who qualify for a service dog or emotional support animal easier. These companies are very careful not to promote illegal activity and not to state anything that could cause legal retaliation against them. They are not dumb. If they were dumb they wouldn’t be in business anymore. Since there is no government oversight, they can easily just saying they’re offering a service for the disabled community, along with reasonably-priced, quality equipment and assistance and support for dealing with landlords, businesses, and other places that may present accommodation challenges. As long as they provide those services, and withdraw access to those services when they find out someone is faking need or training required, they’re technically abiding the law. No one says they can’t offer those services, right? And if people feel the need to use them, then the market has spoken.

Now, here’s where I have my own inner conflict with these sites. I know service dog handlers get all up in arms when these sites are brought up, and I may just be pissing people off here, but I have no problem with the idea of these registries. They allow a handler, for a reasonable cost, to have professional looking equipment and access to a resource that claims they will help in the event of any kind of access issues. As a general thing, if someone would choose to use that service, that’s totally fine by me. I mean, Nika has a “ID number,” but it’s little more than a tracking number for the training program. If I were to give someone Nika’s ID number, they could go back to her trainer and have all of her training records pulled for whatever reason. In the case of these registries, having a registration number doesn’t give legitimacy to the dog, but it provides them with a reference number to look their clients up if they have any questions. Their client calls in, “I’m having problems with my new landlord. He won’t allow my service dog.” They pull up info with the registration number and now they have the dog’s name, the handler’s name, and possibly even a photo of the dog, if the person selected it as an option. This gives them information to work with. If there was a previous case file, this should also come up, giving background context. Maybe they’ve had to work with this landlord before for this client. Maybe this client has a lot of access issues, so it’s something to address because there’s clearly something going on. It’s no different than the registration number on your car, or your town registration number for your dog even. Since they’re not promoting misinformation, encouraging people to fake their need, or even encouraging people not to properly train their animals, I honestly see no problems with the services they’re trying to offer.

So where’s the conflict if I have no problems with them? While I have no problems with the services being sold themselves, I do have a problem with how they’re being used, and that the companies are just shrugging it off instead of taking steps to prevent the problem. When probably close to ten years ago the “life hack” came out to spend $50 to register your dog to take them to housing that wasn’t pet-friendly came out, I honestly didn’t know any better. Actually, I may have even shared that one for my friends who had dogs and worried they wouldn’t be able to move with it. It doesn’t sound like something I’d share, but that was a long time ago and I was a different, less-educated person back then. Hell, at one point I even thought all it took to have a service dog was to be disabled, get a dog, and put a vest on said dog. This came from people who had done just that. The misinformation has been going around for years (and I had first heard that probably about ten years ago as well, told to me by a veteran who wanted her pet with her everywhere, who was not task trained beyond “scaring people off so they didn’t fuck with her.” No lie, that’s what she told everyone her dog was there for, not because it did anything for her, but because people gave her a wide berth, and that dog had a nasty temperament, too.) When you don’t understand something, it’s super easy for people to jump to conclusions. I’ve had people casually throw out other accommodations. Why don’t I get a cane if my knees hurt? Have I thought about a wheelchair? Just go out and buy one, and then suddenly the problem is solved. Again, this was about ten years ago, but it does definitely set the stage for what’s happening today. This information started being spread ten years ago, and ten years later people are still assuming because they heard it somewhere that it’s correct. They then pass on the information to the next person who asks, without thinking for a second that maybe it’s incorrect, because that’s what they did and they got the information from a reliable source. Next thing you know there’s people making posts online asking what registry they should use for their service dog so their landlord will let it stay, or so they don’t get kicked out of stores. They don’t know what the ADA is. They may never have even heard of the ADA, or if they have, they may not realize it governs access rights for service dog teams. They just know that they were told you go to the registry site, buy some gear, and you’re good. They may even have a qualifying disability, and there may be tasks that would greatly help them, but they don’t understand what a trained task is, so they never took the time to train it. The dog’s sole purpose is to keep them safe or to give them comfort, which are not protected tasks. It may not be their fault. They may not know better, but now they’re contributing to the wealth of misinformation spread around, because when someone asks them how they can get their own service dog, because they have XYZ disability, now they’re passing on misinformation.

I truly believe that most people who don’t have legitimate service dogs don’t actually realize they’re breaking the law in any way. They may not realize their service dog isn’t a “real” service dog, because no one has stopped to explain to them what those qualifications are. They may truly believe “provide comfort,” “to keep away threatening people,” or “calm me down” are jobs that the dog is doing, possibly “tasks,” simply because they don’t know what the term legally means in terms of the ACA. If you ask any reasonable person, they’d say it sounds like that dog is doing something to help with their disability, even though it doesn’t fit the definition. However, if you further expand upon that, “a trained task that the person is incapable of performing on their own or without assistance,” most people can acknowledge that simply being a comfort or being intimidating doesn’t qualify, or if they feel it does, may recognize it as a gray area where it really needs more clear definition. “Calms me” is the only one that may be able to be busted into a recognizable task because you can further ask, “Okay, how? What are they trained to do?” That’s generally where you get into behavior interruption, DPT, alerting, and that kind of thing, which are actual tasks. A lot of people can also be a little, well, “kennel blind” I guess is the term I’ve heard. They either excuse or ignore their own dog’s bad behavior because they just don’t want to see it. If their dog is barking, well, someone else must have startled it, because they never bark. Their dog may have a horrible heel, and be at the end of their leash, but that’s okay because the dog just wants to explore. Their dog is distracted and sniffing people, other dogs, or products on the shelves, but their dog is just curious by nature. Most people don’t mean to have dogs that are disruptive, in the way, or that create distractions for other teams. They often just don’t realize it’s so much of a problem, or are too blind to their dog’s behavior that they blame everyone else, or they really would love to train their dog to do better, but no one’s ever taught them how, and maybe the trainer they worked with really sucked and told them that behavior was good enough, and maybe it was when their dog was just a pet, but they never stopped to reconsider when it came to service work. They’re not actively trying to misrepresent themselves and their dogs, but they just don’t have the knowledge and resources to do better, so in some ways, stopping the fakes isn’t just about stopping the registries, but about educating people who do have animals they represent as service dogs, even if they don’t qualify (at least at the time, because they may with proper training and work.)

From my experience, it’s really not hard to meet these people in an open, friendly, and positive manner. “Hey, it looks like distractions are a challenge for your dog. I can recommend a trainer that can help you work on that, if you’d like!” It’s so easy to frame it in a positive light instead of coming out the way so many service dog handlers I’ve seen deal with it, phone out, taking video, and yelling, “Nice fake! Why don’t you get your fake-ass dog out of here? You know you’re endangering real service dogs, right? This isn’t a pet-friendly place. You need to leave before I call management/security. You know, fakers like you are reasons why real service dog teams, like ours, have so many access problems.” Talk about a way to make an enemy! Maybe they just weren’t educated, and now that handler has not only harassed them and taken video without consent, but also made things really uncomfortable and awkward. I mean, sure, it’s one thing to yell at someone if they’ve got an aggressive dog. Yelling when there’s a safety risk is totally expected, but attacking someone who may just lack education, and may have been 100% willing to take time for additional training, task training, or whatever is now completely put off by anything you have to say because you were hostile. Yes, some people will be jerks in response. Some people will tell you off and defend their right to keep on doing what they’re doing, no matter how nice, friendly, and polite you are. When you face those people, you deal with them, but the whole world is going to see a very ugly image of service dog handlers if you go out and actively attack people because their dog isn’t being a perfect angel and probably shouldn’t be doing service work without additional training. And it’s not just the person you hostilely attacked that’s going to have a bad taste for service dog handlers, but also everyone within earshot. Defending your rights is important, but managers and businesses aren’t going to want to deal with us if they see us coming, roll their eyes, and think, “Here we go again…” Since in my experience most people have been receptive to learning, it’s worth it to start from a strictly educational and helpful stance of “we’re in this together” because in most cases it’s just that someone really had no idea. They can’t be expected to do better if they don’t know better.

Taking a moment on that front, I’ve seen and heard some of the most atrocious behavior by service dog handlers. Yes, taking video of dogs behaving badly is, well, bad, and of people reacting inappropriately to service dogs (but looking at the dogs? Commenting? People will look and comment because dogs…) However, there’s definitely behaviors I saw with the service dog group that crossed the line for me. For example, the one little dog, obviously a pet, that was not in control of the little girl that was holding the leash. She couldn’t have been more than maybe four. One of the handlers decided she was going to “test” this little dog, so she walked her dog near it and away. When that didn’t get the reaction she wanted, she brought her dog even closer and had it lay on the floor. After about a minute (and I mean it was timed and it was just over a minute) this little dog noticed her dog, dragged the little handler, and jumped on the service dog to play. Yes, not behavior of a service dog, but you can’t complain that their dog misbehaved when you actively went out and created the potential for a problem! The whole group could have just kept walking, but no, everyone pulled to a stop so this dog could be reported (which is fine), and then this one woman had to push the issue and prove this dog wasn’t able to behave around a service dog, on a second attempt, even. This was a situation where the dog being out of control of a small child, and clearly not a service dog, could have been reported and that was the end of that, but instead someone had to create more of a problem, to work to create proof so this dog would be kicked out, because security won’t kick the dog out if it isn’t being a problem. Another time there’s a report of one of the girls from the group following around this woman and her little dog to the point where the woman picked up her little dog and left the mall. The service dog handler, I guess, called to report the other dog, but apparently the woman called to complain about this girl harassing her, too, which she was well within her rights to do. I mean, it was pretty hostile and this girl was making comments about her the whole time to anyone who would listen. This girl has also yelled at parents to “get your fucking crotch goblins away from my dog!” Mind you, when I witnessed this happen, the kids merely pointed out the dog, but when the parade of service dogs walked by them, the kids were both intimidated by these very large animals and backed away, still looking. Aside from the fact that I hate the term “crotch goblins” and find it incredibly insulting, she went nutty because these kids, what? Looked at the dogs and backed away when they started coming their way? I don’t even know. And yet this is behavior I see all too often in the service dog community, and people pat themselves on the back for it, talking about how they’re upholding the rights of service dog teams everywhere and they’re teaching those fakers a lesson!

But that aside, it’s frustrating that I get on these service dog groups and I run into so much apathy. “We want change and we want it now! Someone should do something about this problem!” I used to respond eagerly, saying, “Yes, let’s do something about it! Here’s where we should start!” I end up with crickets and blank stares. I often get the, “We’ve tried that. It didn’t work.” Okay, great, it’s been tried and didn’t work, but do you really think everyone else who has fought for a cause gave up on the first try? Would women have the vote? Would the Civil Rights movement have gone anywhere? Would gay marriage be a thing? If no one fought for their causes and just packed up and went home the moment it was anything but easy, no one would ever accomplish anything. It just boggles my mind. Can they be any lazier?

This is right up there with another post that was made. The question was posed on whether it would be as much of a cardinal sin if someone were to teach their dog perfect manners for public access, but their dog had no trained tasks, as an untrained emotional support animal being taken out in public. Of course, the get offended generation of service dog handlers lost their minds. That’s illegal! How could someone do that! Of course it’s just as wrong! But very few stopped to question how they would ever know? Unless they’re a business’s employee, they can’t ask the two questions. It’s rude to ask another person’s disability, or what tasks their service dog does. Any service dog handler should know it’s rude to ask another handler about their disability and how they mitigate it. If the dog has tasks it’s not like they’re required to demonstrate them to prove to other handlers they have tasks. Further, not all states have laws against misrepresenting your dog as a service dog, so as much as it’s unethical and wrong, as much as it is fraudulent, it’s not necessarily illegal. It’s kind of a gray area. The big thing being, how do you know? How do you look at a dog and determine that it doesn’t have the necessary training when it’s manners are flawless? And more importantly, does it matter? The real reason everyone has so many problems with dogs that do not have the training required to be a service dog isn’t about them being special (though, really, in some cases I think it is the “I’m more special than you” mentality…) but about the risk those untrained dogs pose. Service dogs get seriously hurt when attacked by untrained dogs. People get hurt when attacked by untrained dogs. That hurts our ability to have access rights in the future. A dog with flawless training, but not tasks? How does that actually hurt anyone? That’s like someone using a cane when they don’t medically need one. If someone has a cane that doesn’t need one, and uses it in a public place, does that prevent someone who does need one from having access? What about a wheelchair, as awkward and unethical as it would be to pretend you needed one? If no one’s being hurt by it, why is anyone complaining? Especially since there may be things that the person doesn’t want to disclose to a random stranger on the street.

The whole thing just boggles my mind, and yet it shouldn’t. Maybe I’m just old and sick of entitlement and privilege, but a lot of these service dog handlers that riot the most are teens and twenty-somethings, generally on the younger side, who still live with their parents, who take care of everything, and typically identify as female. They’re disabled, so they feel that the world owes them everything, and they have literally nothing better to do with their time. Due to immaturity more than anything else, they feel the need to rail against the world to a sickening degree, telling other people how to live, and create these “shit lists” and “black lists” so they can keep a tally of anyone who has ever offended them and destroy their lives. A lot of them are on a complete power trip, feeling they have ultimate authority to decry anyone who suggests the use of a breed they’ve tried before, but washed out for them. They feel the need to call out anyone who believes in practices they don’t support. Most of all, if anyone supports an idea that they don’t 100% support, they get banned from the group, or blocked, or both. As a result, these groups become echo chambers of young kids who are more interested in complaining about how their rights aren’t being respected and how all these other people are making their lives harder (when perhaps it’s a simple matter of advice and education). It’s the most destructive community.

Thankfully I’m starting to surround myself with handlers I actually respect, at least with my online presence. Several of them are veterans and all business. It’s about what gets things done and what helps to educate the public. It’s not the stupid, childish drama. One of them pointed out that he doesn’t understand how so many of these kids go out and dye their dogs all kinds of crazy colors, and then complain when people stare, take pictures, and comment. He has a good point. If your dog is pink and purple, what do you think will happen when you take it to the mall? People will stare, because seeing a dog in the mall is hard enough to resist commenting on, but a dog that’s multicolored? That’s just too much not to say something, and people always have questions. It’s been pointed out that a lot of these kids do it because, contrary to their words, they actually like the attention, which is why they get extravagant and do crazy things like put vulgar patches on their dogs and dye them crazy colors, or stalk other handlers around the store and get some power-trip pride out of declaring another dog a fake and getting them kicked out. They tell the stories of the dogs they got kicked out as though it’s some kind of badge of honor that proves they’re better than everyone else, a part of an exclusive club, and it’s sickening. I hate it.

So while I do get frustrated at all the challenges of a dog at my side, even when she is a lifesaver like she’s been the past couple of days, I’m also trying to live as an ambassador of what real working dog relationships should look like. I try to set a good example for the world, because with vulgar, rude, inappropriate people like that out there, the public needs a taste of people who can actually be mature, otherwise they’re going to take actions to get rid of not only the service dogs, but their handlers.

If you’ve stuck out this vent, thank you. I really didn’t have the spoons for this today, but seriously, it needed to be discussed. And why am I not doing anything about it? I don’t care about the registries and all of that. I don’t care about the well behaved dogs in public. I’m just sick of the stupid service dog drama.