quisutdeus
New member
@b%E1%BA%A1ch0933 Define “mark”
Reactive service dog at a convention
- Thread starter lightlight
- Start date
-
- Tags
- reactive dogs
b%E1%BA%A1ch0933
New member
@quisutdeus There’s no correct way to indicate it except by saying it. Service dogs don’t have to wear anything to signify they are service dogs, though most people do so.
quisutdeus
New member
@b%E1%BA%A1ch0933 Where are you getting your information? The ADA? Scenario: You are in a business - lets say picking up a pizza with your service dog. Another non-service dog is at the bar, two owners drinking beers and their dog starts barking at your SD, foaming at the mouth, lunging etc and bites your Service Dog. Your SD has no markings designating it as an SD however your state law protects SDs. The drunk pet owners at the bar are belligerent, the dude behind the counter does nothing yet there is a big sticker on the door saying Service Animals only.
So you call the local police because in your state (like many states) Service Dogs are a protect class.
The officers respond - guess what their first question is. "How does the drunk, belligerent pet owners know your dog is a Service Dog? What do you say? Then they ask the drunk, belligerent pet owners if their pet is a Service Dog. They stupidly say "yes, of course". Then the officer asks what kind of Service Dog is it and what tasks does it perform and for whom? They say this "pet" is a PTSD dog for Dude on the left. Then the officer asks again what task or tasks has the dog been trained to do? Can you show me one of those tasks .
Since my Service Dog was not "marked" as you say - the dudes had no idea that their pet was interfering with the Service Dog's duties so they cannot be changed under California Penal Code Section 365.6 - Intentional interference with use of guide, signal, or service dog or mobility aid however since the business did not enforce their own policy that is posted on the door they are cited under Cal. Pen. Code § 365.6
As far as the bite - Animal Control is notified, the dog bite is documented by the local police department and the dude's get cited for not having a dog license, up to date vaccines and a 30 day quarantine. After the SD is accessed - the dude's are also delivered the vet bill by Animal Control. Payment due before the end of quarantine. The dude's also get cited under Section 365.7 - Unlawful representation to be owner or trainer of guide, signal, or service dog
So the drunk pet owners ended up with around two thousand dollars in fines and since Animal Control did a behavior assessment during the 30 day quarantine the pet now has to wear a muzzle in public until they hire a trainer to deal with the aggressive, biting behavior.
So - the ADA may not require it but legally it is better to have a patch on a collar or a vest on if you want to get the faker dogs out of places like restaurants as well as getting reimbursed for any vet treatment for the bite and any training needed after the attack to bring the SD back to full work mode (if needed).
So you call the local police because in your state (like many states) Service Dogs are a protect class.
The officers respond - guess what their first question is. "How does the drunk, belligerent pet owners know your dog is a Service Dog? What do you say? Then they ask the drunk, belligerent pet owners if their pet is a Service Dog. They stupidly say "yes, of course". Then the officer asks what kind of Service Dog is it and what tasks does it perform and for whom? They say this "pet" is a PTSD dog for Dude on the left. Then the officer asks again what task or tasks has the dog been trained to do? Can you show me one of those tasks .
Since my Service Dog was not "marked" as you say - the dudes had no idea that their pet was interfering with the Service Dog's duties so they cannot be changed under California Penal Code Section 365.6 - Intentional interference with use of guide, signal, or service dog or mobility aid however since the business did not enforce their own policy that is posted on the door they are cited under Cal. Pen. Code § 365.6
As far as the bite - Animal Control is notified, the dog bite is documented by the local police department and the dude's get cited for not having a dog license, up to date vaccines and a 30 day quarantine. After the SD is accessed - the dude's are also delivered the vet bill by Animal Control. Payment due before the end of quarantine. The dude's also get cited under Section 365.7 - Unlawful representation to be owner or trainer of guide, signal, or service dog
So the drunk pet owners ended up with around two thousand dollars in fines and since Animal Control did a behavior assessment during the 30 day quarantine the pet now has to wear a muzzle in public until they hire a trainer to deal with the aggressive, biting behavior.
So - the ADA may not require it but legally it is better to have a patch on a collar or a vest on if you want to get the faker dogs out of places like restaurants as well as getting reimbursed for any vet treatment for the bite and any training needed after the attack to bring the SD back to full work mode (if needed).
b%E1%BA%A1ch0933
New member
@quisutdeus There is still no “proper” or “correct” way
ninjanigel
New member
@bcrawl Bruh I saw this lady pull two vests out of her purse that said "service dog | do not pet" on them and put them on her two pomeranians as we all waited outside the restaurant for it to open. They were holding the dogs the entire time and the restaurant was even arguing with them about it but ultimately let them inside. 
lhargrave89
New member
@ninjanigel Ugh I hate this, service dogs have to be on the floor inside a restaurant and cannot be in laps. Businesses need education to be empowered on what they can and can’t push back on.
tecumsehmaverick
New member
@lhargrave89 unfortunately they're too afraid of getting sued or bad press if they get it wrong. The one good thing of the anti pet movement is they're making a huge stink about esa and pets in not pet friendly spaces.