Sunday, July 20, 2008

Donate to
Please donate to support our work is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity organization. Learn more »

posted by   |  permalink  |  6 comments  | email  |icon blog rss  |icon comment rss 


Anonymous Anonymous  |  7/21/2008 5:11 AM  |  Flag  
Handicapped individuals have to show proof of a bonafide handicap to qualify for special parking privileges, yet any idiot can slap a vest on a dog and caim it to be an "emotional needs" service animal.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  7/21/2008 11:11 AM  |  Flag  
Why do I have visions of Deeter, (Mike Myers), from SNLs skit "Sprokits", the German TV show...

"Touch my monkey! Touch him! Love him!

(Many of you younger readers may not remember this!)

Anonymous blue'smom  |  7/21/2008 3:56 PM  |  Flag  
Matching shirts for the monkey and the owner will not qualify the monkey as a "service anmial." What's next? A kangaroo in Sears? A llama in the mall food court? If a disability has nothing to do with vision or mobility a "service animal" is not required in a store, health care facility or food service facility. This is shameless abuse of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I look forward to clarification of this law,it might disquality some of the "service pits". Google Chloe the Service Dog and you will find a website for a "service pit bull in training". The website gives a list of her qualifications but it amounts to nothing more than a list of basic obedience skills and a few tricks. Incidently the full title of the website is "Chloe the Breed Ambassador" and that is much more in line with the reality. This dog was in a Wal-Mart in the company of a "trainer" and quite correctly ordered out of the store by the manager. Chloe's owner threatened a lawsuit and a Wal-Mart regional manager caved in to the pressure and issued an apology and goodie basket. This throws Wal-Mart's doors open to "service Pit bulls" and does a huge disservice to the truly disabled.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  7/21/2008 9:15 PM  |  Flag  
Thanks, bluesmom....interesting site regarding Chloe the Service dog, who isn't really a working service dog, but a walking PR campaign against BSL. I found it interesting that "Chloe passed the Service Dog evaluation at 5 months that would have been given to dogs 1 year and older." That scares me....a five month old puppy is in no way mature enough to definitively exhibit what he/she will become. Since dog aggression in pits does not always manifest itself until the dog reaches maturity at 2-3 years, how do we know that Chloe won't some day "turn on" to fighting if challenged by another dog?

The owner claims that Chloe LOVES other dogs and spends lots of time at dog parks and dog beaches; a direct contradiction of what a "responsible" pit owner is supposed to do! Cloe is a little over 2 years old, so may still develop DA. The owner is nutty enough to publish the ten commandments of pit bull ownership, but evidently they don't apply to her.

I am becoming concerned that the new "tactic" of the pro-pit lobby is to try to overrepresent the number of pit bulls that are earning CGC's as "proof" that the entire breed is stable. It seems that many pro-pit organizations are rushing to have young pit bulls pass the CGC, most likely before they reach maturity and their real potential for DA becomes evident. It concerns me that a one year old pit bull passes the CGC, and is then declared a "Breed Ambassador"...the pit that mauled my friends dog had lived next door since it was a puppy, with no problems, until it reached 2 1/2 years old... suddenly one day it lept the fence and tried to kill her elderly dog.

Anonymous Anonymous  |  7/21/2008 9:47 PM  |  Flag  
I would like to make one more point about the use of pit bulls as "therapy" dogs. My mother is disabled by Alzheimers, and I have spent a good deal of time in both assisted living facilities and LTC facilities, and have spoken to some of the folks who do pet therapy. One of the considerations you have when choosing a dog for this kind of work is that many residents will be afraid of the dog...especially if the dog is a large, menacing looking breed. The PRIMARY consideration for choosing a dog for therapy visits should be the comfort of the residents, NOT to make a political statement. Guarding and fighting breeds were created to look menacing, muscular, and imposing, not cuddly and cute. Many residents would be afraid of having a pit bull pay them a visit, and depending on the level of their disability, may not be in a position to express that fear. How terrible to have a sick and disabled elderly person, trapped in a situation where they may feel intimidated by an animal they are afraid of....all to accomodate the ego of some "rescue angel", who is not doing therapy work because she seeks to give back to the community, or bring joy to lonely residents, but because she wants to make a political statement about a breed of dog!

I think that sick, disabled residents like my mom would much rather a visit from the sweet faced Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, which can sit gently in her lap, or the lovely Standard poodle. I also believe that it is equally important that the handler is a mature, kind, compassionate person who loves the elderly and disabled; therapy work is not just something to put on your dogs resume, and I am VERY concerned that the pro-pit lobby would actually stoop low enough to get pit bulls certifed for therapy PURELY as PR; the rescue angels will spend most of their visits to facilities "educating" residents about pit bulls instead of keeping them company.

Anonymous Trigger  |  10/23/2009 2:46 AM  |  Flag  
Service Monkey Denied By Court!

Oct 22, 2009 -- "Debby Rose filed suit against Springfield Greene County Health Department, Cox Health Systems and Wal-Mart in 2006, for refusing to recognize her monkey as a service animal. A federal judge ruled against Rose and went as far as to say she didn't need a service animal at all, rejecting her claim that she even has a disability."

Post a Comment »