NO SERVICE DOG BREED
DISCRIMINATION
Akita, Bull Terrier, Pit
Bull, Rottweiler, Staffordshire, etc; the DOJ rules against state or local
breed restrictions on service dogs for the disabled!
Reporter - D.M.
Hedgecock
Yesterday,
July 26, 2010, was the 20th Anniversary of the signing of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Department of Justice (DOJ) took the
opportunity to release its final rule in order to adopt enforceable
accessibility standards. Contained within the exhaustive document is the
DOJ's explicit rejection of the idea that service dogs can be restricted by
state and local governments based on breed.
In Subpart A,
Section 35.104, Definitions, the idea of Breed Restrictions is addressed:
The Department does not believe that it is either appropriate or consistent
with the ADA to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs
based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked
aggression or attacks.
The DOJ goes
on to detail the prohibitive difficulty of deferring to local breed
restrictions when considering the rights of disabled people to have and
benefit from their service dogs. With such a wide variety of breed
restrictions from community to community, some based on breed, and some
based on size, people with disabilities would be unduly restricted regarding
living and travel if deference was given to local breed restrictions. They
even go so far as to point out that there have been breed restrictions on
German Shepherds in some communities for decades and they have been service
dogs during that entire time without a history of the type of unprovoked
aggression or attacks that would pose a direct threat.
Pit Bulls were
never specifically mentioned in the section, but it is hard to imagine any
other breed was a bigger catalyst for the release of this position. While
many other breeds are still restricted and Rottweilers still suffer from
some of the same media bias the pit bull does, there is just no hotter topic
in the canine/public safety world than pit bulls and the their role and
place in society.
This expressed
rejection of breed restrictions is nothing short of huge. In a mere 2
paragraphs the DOJ dismantles the idea that public safety is best served by
judging a group of dogs by the way they look. They also point out the silly
idea that a service dog that is safe and acceptable in one community is
somehow inherently dangerous in another just because its geographic location
has changed.
The DOJ makes
sure to point out that this isn't a free pass for all service dogs no matter
what. They state that service dogs can be restricted based on individual
behavior:
State and
local government entities have the ability to determine, on a case-by-case
basis, whether a particular service animal can be excluded based on that
particular animal's actual behavior or history--not based on fears or
generalizations about how an animal or breed might behave.
There is
almost a staggering amount of rational thinking reasoned out in the two
paragraph section. Judging dogs on a case by case basis and not on fears or
generalizations, imagine that.
((ref #1) The full text
of the Breed Limitations section can be found at the end of this article.
As an end
note, the section following Breed Restrictions in the Final Rule addresses
the issue of emotional support animals. Service animals, including animals
for physical and psychological disabilities, have to be specifically trained
to assist their disabled handlers with their particular needs. This means
that dogs that benefit people in other ways without specific training, such
as therapy dogs and emotional support dogs are not covered under the ADA. I
think it is important to make this distinction because service animals are
special and serve a good purpose after going through rigorous training. Not
just any dog can be a service animal.
However, in
the emerging study of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, I hope more programs
can be developed to specifically train emotional support animals so they can
be covered under the ADA. We have an ever-growing understanding of the
benefits of the human-canine bond. We also have a growing understanding of
just how heavy the toll of combat can be on our soldiers and how deeply
other traumatic events can affect us in everyday life. I hope, for the sake
of our returning veterans and for survivors of abuse and violence, the
benefits of the human-canine bond that are less tangible and more difficult
to quantify can be better understood and more widely recognized.
Full Text from
Final Rule:
Breed
Limitations. A few commentators suggested that certain breeds of dogs should
not be allowed to be used as service animals. Some suggested that the
Department should defer to local laws restricting the breeds of dogs that
individuals who reside in a community may own. Other commentators opposed
breed restrictions, stating that the breed of a dog does not determine its
propensity for aggression and that aggressive and non-aggressive dogs exist
in all breeds.
The Department
does not believe that it is either appropriate or consistent with the ADA to
defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local
concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or
attacks. Such deference would have the effect of limiting the rights of
persons with disabilities under the ADA who use certain service animals
based on where they live rather than on whether the use of a particular
animal poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others. Breed
restrictions differ significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some
jurisdictions have no breed restrictions. Others have restrictions that,
while well-meaning, have the unintended effect of screening out the very
breeds of dogs that have successfully served as service animals for decades
without a history of the type of unprovoked aggression or attacks that would
pose a direct threat, e.g., German Shepherds. Other jurisdictions prohibit
animals over a certain weight, thereby restricting breeds without invoking
an express breed ban. In addition,
deference to breed restrictions contained in local laws would have the
unacceptable consequence of restricting travel by an individual with a
disability who uses a breed that is acceptable and poses no safety hazards
in the individual's home jurisdiction but is nonetheless banned by other
jurisdictions. State and
local government entities have the ability to determine, on a case-by-case
basis, whether a particular service animal can be excluded based on that
particular animal's actual behavior or history--not based on fears or
generalizations about how an animal or breed might behave.
This ability
to exclude an animal whose behavior or history evidences a direct threat is
sufficient to protect health and safety.
#1
gamedogguardian.com
#2
Why Breed Bans Don't Work
Reference:
Service Dogs Defined
http://www.thedogplace.org/LEGISLATION/Service-Dog-Ruling-10081.asp
|
