Service animals/therapy animals

[strappinglad]

Does anyone have experience with these types of animals in the Chapel? Any specific policy ? Opinions?

[Calm]

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/03/the-new-disabilities-web-site?lang=eng

Quote

For instance, some might wonder if a service animal is allowed in a Church building. The answer is yes; the only place service animals are not allowed is in the temple. There, temple ordinance workers are glad to offer assistance to anyone needing it. The site also advises members to be aware of local laws concerning service animals and places where those with disabilities might need additional assistance.

Eons ago, there was a guide dog who attended some services in a ward I grew up in, but haven't had any personal experience since then.

[strappinglad]

Service animals, particularly dogs have certain qualifications and training required before they are accepted . Now there are therapy animals which have no such training. Are they allowed as well. BTW , I was surprised to see that Sandra Tanner is now on the General Board. Must not be the same Sis Tanner I am aware of.

[bluebell]

This answer from Gramps seems relevant.

Specifically, the part he quotes from a church source that says Church policy generally allows the use of service dogs in Church buildings. Other types of service animals or comfort pets are not permitted. The only places where service dogs are not allowed are in the temple and in venues where meetings/events are being broadcasted or recorded. In the temple, ordinance workers will gladly assist you. In other venues, ushers will direct you to overflow viewing rooms where your service dog is allowed. Please be aware that local laws concerning service animals and other assistance for those with disabilities may vary.

This answer was written in 2012 so take that into account.

Edited May 29, 2018 by bluebell

[RevTestament]

I guess my comfort chocolate bunny rabbit is out of the question....

[JAHS]

We had a blind lady in our ward who brought her service dog to church. She was always having to tell the kids and others to not pet him for some reason.
Must have been part of the training and discipline of the dog so he is not distracted while on duty.

[Daniel2]

I am a bit surprised to see that the church doesn’t allow service animals in the temple or recorded/broadcast meetings (presuming that disqualifies such disabled individuals from attending General Conference...?). I can certainly understand not allowing therapy or emotional support animals, but service dogs are widely considered to be an extension of the disabled individual themselves and identified as such by the ADA, I believe...? (Sounds as if churches are exempt from ADA regulations, I would guess as private/non-public entities?) 

In my view, saying that temple workers are able to assist attendees in lieu of the skills of a service animal displays an unfortunate lapse of judgement and a misunderstanding of the needs of disabled people who truly rely on service animals and he services said animals provide. 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

We had a blind lady in our ward who brought her service dog to church. She was always having to tell the kids and others to not pet him for some reason.
Must have been part of the training and discipline of the dog so he is not distracted while on duty.

Again, service animals are viewed to be extensions of the disabled individual and are neither pets (the noun) nor should the be petted (the verb) unless given permission.  They are working animals and should not be distracted by others, especially since their functions are not always visible or observable.  I would encourage bishops presiding over congregations including individuals with a service animal (or any disability, for that matter) to take the time to consult with their disabled ward members and effort to help educate all other ward members on proper etiquette involving the disabilities. 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I guess my comfort chocolate bunny rabbit is out of the question....

You can't hide him?

 

[readstoomuch]

People have wanted to take their service animal into the operating room during surgery.  I actually think that certified service animals allowed in certain areas is useful and permitable.  Airlines have had huge problems with people showing up with all kinds of service animals.  Even a large 1100 pound pig and an emu.  Nothing surprises me any more, even if I have a sympathy for those with service animals.  

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

We had a blind lady in our ward who brought her service dog to church. She was always having to tell the kids and others to not pet him for some reason.
Must have been part of the training and discipline of the dog so he is not distracted while on duty.

https://www.anythingpawsable.com/cant-pet-service-dogs/

Besides distraction, I have been told only its owner should give it rewards (so it only looks to them for 'authority') and petting is rewarding for most dogs I have known.

Quote

Legally, Service Dogs don’t have public access rights. Their handler, who must have a disability in order to be partnered with a Service Dog, has the right to access “places of public accommodation” with their Service Dog. There is a difference — it’s the person with rights, not the dog. The person has the right to not be discriminated against based on the fact they have a Service Dog. However, having a Service Dog does not magically grant a handler access to places where members of the public aren’t allowed. Exceptions to “everywhere” include churches and other places of worship, private/exclusive clubs, certain areas of zoos, aquariums and refuges where the dog’s presence could cause danger or stress to the animals within, and places where other people can be excluded, like MRI rooms and radiology, sterile laboratories or factory floors, and the ICU, cardiac and burn units....

When in a business or place of public accommodation, if it isn’t readily apparent that a dog is a Service Dog, the employees or person in charge may only ask two questions of the team:

Is the animal required because of a disability? (This often takes the form of “Is that a Service Dog?”)

What work or tasks has the dog been trained to perform? (This often takes the form of “What does the dog do for you?”)

https://www.anythingpawsable.com/national-service-dog-month-10-facts-service-dogs/

Edited May 30, 2018 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

My two dogs are great therapy for me.  They always put me in a better mood (except when they poop or throw up on the carpet but that is a rare thing). I wish I could take them to church.  They would be good.

[The Nehor]

Service animals serve a practical physical function. My ward has a young girl with medical problems and she has a service animal with her that alerts others if she starts to seize. Seeing eye dogs are critical as well but I don't see the need in the temple. There are enough people there to guide someone who cannot see and watch over someone with a possible medical problem and, if needed, can assign someone specifically to help them.

The concept of therapy animals annoy me. It is self-infantilization to convince yourself you cannot fly or function in public without your normal or weird pet. Seriously, get help and work on the problem. There is now a shady industry of non-binding idiots selling therapy and comfort animal documentation which airlines are honoring for some reason. It is stupid.

The one legitimate use I can see for a therapy animal is that it usually lets you keep a pet when your living conditions do not normally allow a pet (such as subsidized apartments) and this can help some people. I believe this was the original use for the designation. I have known too many lonely old people who need their pet. They don't need it on an airplane or a train or a bus or a restaurant.

[Calm]

Quote

A service animal is any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not considered service animals.

The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the individual’s disability. Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to:

Assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks.

Alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds.

Providing non-violent protection or rescue work.

Pulling a wheelchair.

Assisting an individual during a seizure.

Alerting individuals to the presence of allergens.

Retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone.

Providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities.

Helping individuals with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors.

The crime deterrent effects of an animal’s presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship are not considered work or tasks under the definition of a service animal.

https://adata.org/factsheet/service-animals

I didn't realize that only dogs are officially defined as service animals.

Otoh, .I had never considered these as anything but emotional support/therapy.

Quote

A public entity or private business must allow a person with a disability to bring a miniature horse on the premises as long as it has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability. However, an organization can consider whether the facility can accommodate the miniature based on the horse’s type, size, and weight. The rules that apply to service dogs also apply to miniature horses.

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Calm

[strappinglad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Is the animal required because of a disability? (This often takes the form of “Is that a Service Dog?”)

What work or tasks has the dog been trained to perform? (This often takes the form of “What does the dog do for you?”) 

 

What would be the point of asking these questions if there is nothing that can be done by the store owner to verify the accuracy of the responses? At least a car in the handicap zone needs a card displayed to show that the vehicle is used by someone who verified the disability.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

What would be the point of asking these questions if there is nothing that can be done by the store owner to verify the accuracy of the responses? At least a car in the handicap zone needs a card displayed to show that the vehicle is used by someone who verified the disability.

If a person says "no", they can ask them to remove the animal.  Not everyone will lie, after all.

Knowing what the animal is meant ahead of time to do can avoid conflicts as well as let the individual know if they should offer their own services for something the animal can't do.

It is not just about verification.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

When we lived in Washington there was a couple in the ward and the wife would occasionally bring a small dog in a baby carriage to church and social activities.  The only thing I ever heard was that she felt this was needed for her personally.  

I am glad airlines have come to their senses and stopped, to a large extent, those who abuse the goodwill of others by bringing animals such as peacocks, etc. on planes.  If you have the need for an animal to accompany you then drive - UNLESS it is a service animal.  Emotional support animals are not service animals.  

[Daniel2]

13 hours ago, strappinglad said:

What would be the point of asking these questions if there is nothing that can be done by the store owner to verify the accuracy of the responses? At least a car in the handicap zone needs a card displayed to show that the vehicle is used by someone who verified the disability.

As I understand it, the ADA is very broad with the intention of protecting those most vulnerable—namely, the disabled. Many disabled are living on the lower end of the income brackets, and not all are able to qualify for grants or other means by which to pay for commercially-trained service dogs, which are quite expensive and often require getting on a wait-list. The ADA requirements for service dogs allow the disabled or other non-professionals to train their own dogs personally or through non-commercial means, because ADA guidelines (again) are broadly applied to protect those most vulnerable. Requiring all individuals with disabilities to register and maintain any ongoing type of registration of their service animals is considered to be prohibitive for those who would otherwise benefit from service animals. Of course, that broad application allows abuses by those individuals trying to pass off their pets as service animals. However, there ARE limits to even service animal access, such as the animals being aggressive to those around them. There will always be problems for individuals seeking to skirt around any law, but in the case of the ADA, the law strives to protect accessibility for and the needs of the disabled first and foremost. 

The law also limits business owners’ ability to ask too many questions to avoid privacy rights around individuals’ able-ness classification and not being unduly badgered about their disability, especially in light of the fact that not all disabilities are visible, just as not all of service dogs’ functions are visible or observable (i.e. seizure alert dogs, etc).  

Finally, if service dogs were required to be officially registered in some fashion, that would be tantamount to requiring a government registry on the basis of a protected class (by entension of said registry being on the basis of being disabled as a requirement for even having a service animal in the first place).  Typically, any government requirement to register on the basis of race, gender, religion, or any other disabled class is frowned upon.... 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Daniel2

[Amulek]

19 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

In my view, saying that temple workers are able to assist attendees in lieu of the skills of a service animal displays an unfortunate lapse of judgement and a misunderstanding of the needs of disabled people who truly rely on service animals and he services said animals provide. 

How so? It seems to me that a human is more than capable of performing any service function that an animal has been trained to do. I mean, the only reason we train service animals in the first place is because it isn't feasible to have people follow them around all the time to help them out. 

But when you go to the temple, we do have someone who can provide the service you need for the duration of your visit, so I don't see any real harm in having someone leave their service animal at home or in the visitor's lounge or however that gets handled in actual practice. 

 

[mnn727]

22 hours ago, JAHS said:

We had a blind lady in our ward who brought her service dog to church. She was always having to tell the kids and others to not pet him for some reason.
Must have been part of the training and discipline of the dog so he is not distracted while on duty.

Yes, the dog was working.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

How so? It seems to me that a human is more than capable of performing any service function that an animal has been trained to do. I mean, the only reason we train service animals in the first place is because it isn't feasible to have people follow them around all the time to help them out. 

But when you go to the temple, we do have someone who can provide the service you need for the duration of your visit, so I don't see any real harm in having someone leave their service animal at home or in the visitor's lounge or however that gets handled in actual practice. 

 

There are dogs (and possibly other animals) who can sense blood sugar changes as well as impending seizures.

Continuous monitors are not without their problem ( they keep sending my daughter low) so I suspect not everyone will be able to use them until the technology gets much better.  I don't know of any home test that can predict seizures. 

Diabetes will in the majority of cases be able to be controlled by testing an hour before and then in the locker room  to spot a possible downward trend, so I am unaware of any significant issues that would require a service animal for that reason (though there may be one).

Edited May 30, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Yes, the dog was working.

Apparently when at home and not working, they can be treated just like any other dog, but owners might have personal preferences, so always good to ask even there.

I make it a habit to ask every owner anyway.  Just seems polite.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Apparently when at home and not working, they can be treated just like any other dog, but owners might have personal preferences, so always good to ask even there.

I make it a habit to ask every owner anyway.  Just seems polite.

Most service animals are trained that when the harness or poncho or whatever is on they are working. When it is off they are not and behave more like a normal untrained dog.

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Most service animals are trained that when the harness or poncho or whatever is on they are working. When it is off they are not and behave more like a normal untrained dog.

This is accurate.

When you see a working service dog (the harness/poncho is on) the proper thing to do is to let the working animal do it's job and not distract it with treats/pets/cooing/etc.  In other words, you should pretty much ignore it.  When the harness/poncho is off, then they're 'off the clock' and open for belly rubs, kisses, etc.  It's SUPER important to respect this difference: it takes 100's of hours and >$1000 to train a service dog, and not respecting the harness royally messes up that training.  

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Apparently when at home and not working, they can be treated just like any other dog, but owners might have personal preferences, so always good to ask even there.

I make it a habit to ask every owner anyway.  Just seems polite.

And smart.  Not all dogs like strangers.