Service and Therapy Animals: Changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Title II: Section 35.136 Service Animals
DogsBite.org - The Department of Justice is currently revising the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Sections of the act that will be amended include service and therapy pets. Currently, there are no formal training standards to qualify an animal as a service or therapy pet. Many of the revisions the DOJ has made, however, are helpful, including the distinction that animals whose sole purpose is to provide "emotional support" are not service animals.

DogsBite.org is concerned about the growing effort of pit bull owners and other animal groups that advocate pit bulls as "excellent" service/therapy pets. We believe these groups may hoodwink disabled persons into believing that a pit bull is a safe dog. We are also concerned how the DOJ defines an "attack dog." In the Minimal Protection area the DOJ writes: "excluding from coverage so-called 'attack dogs.'" But what is an attack dog?

Does a dog have to attack once before it is labeled an attack dog? In many instances, a violent attack is a pit bull's first attack. Pit bulls were selectively bred to hide warning signals before an attack. The degree to which a person "does not know" whether or not a pit bull will attack is high enough to exclude the breed from all service animal work. Neither the community nor a disabled person can afford pit bulls being used in this area.

Back in January, two pet pit bulls attacked and killed one of their owners. The victim, Kelli Chapman was 24-years old. The family believes the dogs attacked her because she suffered a seizure while sleeping. The genetic traits of this dog do not make them a suitable service dog. The death of Kelly Chapman is a concrete example. Disabled individuals need dogs that can help them, not dogs that kill them while they are enduring a seizure.

Post Comment to DOJ
We highly urge you to post a comment directly to the Department of Justice about areas that concern you. To leave a comment, click the gold icon.

Definitions. Service animal means any dog or other common domestic animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a qualified individual with a disability, including, but not limited to, guiding individuals who are blind or have low vision, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, fetching items, assisting an individual during a seizure, retrieving medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and assisting individuals, including those with cognitive disabilities, with navigation. The term service animal includes individually trained animals that do work or perform tasks for the benefit of individuals with disabilities, including psychiatric, cognitive, and mental disabilities. The term service animal does not include wild animals (including nonhuman primates born in captivity), reptiles, rabbits, farm animals (including any breed of horse, miniature horse, pony, pig, or goat), ferrets, amphibians, and rodents. Animals whose sole function is to provide emotional support, comfort, therapy, companionship, therapeutic benefits, or to promote emotional well-being are not service animals.

Service animals. The Department wishes to clarify the obligations of public entities to accommodate individuals with disabilities who use service animals. The Department continues to receive a large number of complaints from individuals with service animals. It appears, therefore, that many covered entities are confused about their obligations under the ADA in this area. At the same time, some individuals with impairments -- who would not be covered as qualified individuals with disabilities -- are claiming that their animals are legitimate service animals, whether fraudulently or sincerely (albeit mistakenly), to gain access to the facilities of public entities. Another trend is the use of wild or exotic animals, many of which are untrained, as service animals. In order to clarify its position and avoid further misapplication of the ADA, the Department is proposing amendments to its regulation with regard to service animals.

Minimal protection. In the Department's ADA Business Brief on Service Animals, which was published in 2002, the Department interpreted the minimal protection language in its definition of service animals within the context of a seizure (i.e., alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure). Although the Department received comments urging it to eliminate the phrase "providing minimal protection'' from its regulation, the Department continues to believe that the language serves the important function of excluding from coverage so-called "attack dogs'' that pose a direct threat to others.

Guidance on permissible service animals. The existing regulation implementing title III defines a "service animal'' as "any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal.'' At the time the regulation was promulgated, the Department believed that leaving the species selection up to the discretion of the individual with a disability was the best course of action. Due to the proliferation of animal types that have been used as "service animals,'' including wild animals, the Department believes that this area needs established parameters. Therefore, the Department is proposing to eliminate certain species from coverage under the ADA even if the other elements of the definition are satisfied.

Comfort animals vs. psychiatric service animals. Under the Department's present regulatory language, some individuals and entities have assumed that the requirement that service animals must be individually trained to do work or carry out tasks excluded all persons with mental disabilities from having service animals. Others have assumed that any person with a psychiatric condition whose pet provided comfort to him or her was covered by the ADA. The Department believes that psychiatric service animals that are trained to do work or perform a task (e.g., reminding its owner to take medicine) for persons whose disability is covered by the ADA are protected by the Department's present regulatory approach.

Proposed training standards. The Department has always required that service animals be individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, but has never imposed any type of formal training requirements or certification process. While some advocacy groups have urged the Department to modify its position, the Department does not believe that such a modification would serve the array of individuals with disabilities who use service animals.

Comment: The Anatomy of a Whitewash, James Crosby

Professional Whitewasher

DogsBite.org - On June 29th, DogsBite.org posted our Comment Policy to clarify that we do not post comments that blame innocent victims of severe and fatal dog attacks. We offer a voice for victims and people who care about these victims. We are not a sounding board for pit bull advocates or pit bull special interest groups. This policy is clearly visible on our comment form.

Just a few days after we posted our policy, a person named James (Jim) Crosby left a comment that ignored these rules. Crosby is a retired police officer and refers to himself as a "Canine Aggression Expert." He investigates fatal dog attacks and operates a consulting business called CanineAggression.org. According to his website, Crosby does not charge a fee for his "fatal dog attack" response services.

Crosby is also a pit bull owner who is aligned with several special interest groups that strongly oppose pit bull regulations: the American Canine Foundation (ACF) and the National Canine Research Council. Both organizations are pit bull propaganda machines. Simultaneously, he notes on his website that selective breeding of pit bulls has made them unlike any other dog breed:

"When they (pit bulls) fight, human intervention has selected for animals that do not turn off, and do not stop fighting until one, or both, are dead.1"

We have not changed Crosby's original comment, but we have used an underline for emphasis to show the horrific nature of his words. The comment he left regards the fatal attack of Mary Bernal. In June of last year, while Mary was visiting family members, she picked up her dachshund and was subsequently savagely attacked and killed by the family's pit bull, named Taz.

Genetic animal-aggression may have started the attack, as the pit bull was reportedly after the dachshund. Still, the dog latched onto Mary's scalp, flung her to the ground and drug her, still holding the scalp until it ripped clear off. Mary was airlifted to Halifax Medical Center and died shortly thereafter. Please remember how she died as you read through Crosby's comment.

"It's a shame that your reports are typically incomplete, as in this case. How do I know? I investigated this incident (and many others) in person.

This attack began before the day of the attack. Relatives were visiting for a month and had a small dachshund. The dachshund had received substantial attention, supplanting the dog Taz in many interactions. Just prior to the attack Ms. Bernal had picked up the dachshund because the two dogs had begun scrapping. When Ms. Bernal yelled at Taz and snatched the dachshund away, Taz went after the little dog. Bernal held the dog up and screamed. Taz's first bite was to Ms. Bernal's hand, where she was holding the dachshund. Her screaming intensified, triggering further action by Taz. Ms. Bernal went down and Taz continued attacking the screaming, thrashing woman. Ms. Macias stuck the dog repeatedly with a shovel, intensifying the attack.

Was this a reasonable attack? No-absolutely not. This attack was tragic. It was also unrelated to the breed of dog. ANY large dog could have, and probably has, shown the same behavior. I have seen it in attacks by breeds ranging from Pit Bulls to Dachshunds-who yes, have killed people.

I should also point out that the dog Taz suffered repeated seizures immediately after the attack, to the point that the Halifax Humane Society euthanized him within hours of the attack. Those seizures may well have been the cause of the attack-they could easily have been the result of a tumor or other neurological disease that could also explain the sudden aggression-without invoking the demon breed.

If you are going to publicly blog about these incidents, please get the actual facts and look for the real causes-like human behavior prior to the attack. In nearly every attack I have investigated on scene-and that is more that any other person ever has-there has been a human related pattern of behavior or a human fault that has directly led to the incident.
James W. Crosby"

1On November 20, 2008, two days after James Crosby gave sworn expert testimony against the City of Aurora's Fighting Breed ban, it came to our attention that portions of his website had been removed that directly relate to this blog post, specifically the teal colored text from his "Suggested Protocol" document about investigating fatal dog attacks. We were able to access the original document through Google Cache on November 20. During cross-examination on November 18, Crosby was not asked about this document, which among other things states, that pit bulls "have concerning behavioral difference from other canines," as they "do not stop fighting until one, or both are dead."

Related articles:
12/08/08: Expert, James Crosby, Testifies in Aurora Fighting Breed Ban
11/20/08: Aurora, Colorado Fighting Breed Ban Goes to District Court
06/14/08: 2007 Fatality: Mary Bernal Killed by In-Law's Pit Bull

Posted on by

2005 Dog Bite Fatality: 4-Year Old Boy Killed by Uncle's Pit Bull in Bartlesville, Oklahoma

Cody Adair, killed by chained pit bull
Cody Adair, 4-years old, was killed by his uncle's chained pit bull in Bartlesville.

Bartlesville, OK - Cody Adair, 4-years old, was killed by his uncle's chained pit bull on December 30, 2005. Cody had been playing alone on the front porch before the attack. His mother, siblings, and uncle were inside the home. The uncle's pit bull was in the backyard, chained inside of a pen. When Cody wandered into the backyard and got inside the pen, the male pit bull attacked and killed him. Cody was transported to Jane Phillips Hospital, but was declared dead upon arrival.

According to the Dec. 31 Bartlesville Police Department incident report, officers were informed at 4:15 p.m. that a child had been killed by a pit bull dog at a residence in the 200 block of Southwest Seminole Avenue.
At that time, it was disclosed that the boy, later identified as Cody Adair, had “extensive neck and throat injuries from the attack by the pit bull dog.”
The boy was found dead from the attack.

The dog responsible for the attack was described as a tan and white pit bull dog with blood on its face and both front paws. According to police, the dog was on a 1-inch thick chain that was connected to a cable. The cable was connected to a pole stationed in the ground. - Examiner-Enterprise, January 30, 2016

The pit bull was about 18 months old and belonged to Christopher Lewis, the boy's uncle. It was given to Lewis six months earlier by an "unknown male at a local convenience store," reports the Examiner-Enterprise. Lewis told police Cody had played with the dog before without incident. The police report states Cody had "severe trauma" to his neck under his chin, leaving his head nearly severed. His left ear was completely chewed off and only a portion of his right ear remained.

Another smaller pit bull -- about 6-months old -- was also at the home. The puppy had blood on its forehead, nose, mouth and front paw, reports the Enterprise. Both pit bulls were later euthanized. Cody's mauling death, and other violent attacks by pit bulls in the area, strengthened Rep. Paul Wesselhoft's (R-Moore) resolve to regulate pit bulls in the state. "The pit bull is genetically programmed to fight and to kill its prey and sometimes you just cannot turn that off," he said.

Archived articles:
01/03/2006: Parents bury 4-year-old killed by dog
01/04/2006: Pit bull terrier kills 4 year old Bartlesville boy
01/09/2006: Child's death strengthens lawmaker's resolve to ban pit bulls

2007 Dog Bite Fatality: Mary Bernal Killed by In-Law's Pit Bull

Pit Bull Scalps Victim
Deltona, FL - A pit bull that often shared a bed with its owners viciously attacked and killed a 63-year-old woman that had been visiting the family. It almost tore off the thumb of one of its owners as she tried to get the dog off her sister. It wasn't until a deputy sheriff shot the dog with a stun gun that it released its grip on the victim.

In this time, the dog had pulled off the woman's entire scalp and bitten her severely about the face. Mary Bernal of Dallas, Texas, died at Halifax Medical Center in Daytona Beach, where she was airlifted after the attack in the backyard of her sister's home on Roble Lane. Her husband Rudy Bernal, was in a state of horrified shock.

"[The pit bull] was dragging her, and all her scalp was hanging by her side. He wouldn't turn her loose. He would let her go. I saw police shoot the dog with a stun gun. That's the only way they could cut him loose." - Rudy Bernal

The attack began when Mary went into the backyard and picked up the couple's pet dachshund. Estela Macias, who tried to get the dog away from her sister, was sent to Central Florida Regional Hospital in Sanford for her injuries. "My sister-in-law is dead," she later told reporters as he wiped away tears. "I don't know what happened."

Eliasar Macias, the husband of Estela and the dog's owner, said he was stunned that his sister-in-law was killed and his wife was injured by the dog. He said that his dog never had any problems and that "he was a real friendly dog until now." He also said that the dog often slept with the two. The dog had been in bed with his wife that morning.

Witnesses said Mary Bernal, 63, was visiting her sister, Estela Macias, 52, when she bent down to pick up another dog in the backyard. That was when the pit bull attacked. One of deputies used a taser on the dog to get it to stop attacking.

Bernal was flown by a sheriff's office helicopter to Halifax Medical Center in Daytona Beach with a critical head wound. She later died at the hospital.

Ealiasar Macias, the owner of the dog and husband of the victim's sister, said he had never seen their male pit bull snap before.

Estela Macias was taken to Florida Hospital Fish Memorial in Orange City by ambulance. She was bitten on the hand and arm. Macias also reported having chest pain. - Central Florida News 13, June 29, 2007

Animal Control found 3 adult dogs and 6 puppies in the house, including a pregnant pit bull. "Beware of Dog" signs hung on both sides of the house, but neighbors said neither Tas, the killer pit bull, nor the family's other pit bull was ever a problem. Animal Control took Tas and planned to destroy it after Marcias agreed to surrender the animal.