[nagdu] DoJ's Rationale Behind Banning Non-Canine Service Animals

Thu Jan 8 14:53:43 UTC 2009

Here is a new blog entry from http://scienceblogs.com/culturedish/2009/01/dojs_rationale_behind_banning.php continuing and clarifying some of the debate yesterday.

Craig

DoJ's Rationale Behind Banning Non-Canine Service Animals

Posted on: January 7, 2009 10:26 PM, by 

Rebecca Skloot 

Yesterday, as part of 

ongoing follow up

 on my 

story

 in this week's New York Times Magazine, I posted about 

a Department of Justice document leaked to me

 with the wording of their proposal to ban all non-canine service animals. Below the jump, for those interested, I've pasted an excerpt from that proposal,

which is not yet public. It outlines the arguments the DOJ heard for and against the species ban during this summer's 

public hearings

, plus the DOJ's responses, and its final ruling on the issue. 

Bottom line: 

block quote

"The Department agrees with commenters' views that limiting the number and types of species recognized as service animals will provide greater predictability

for public accommodations as well as added assurance of access for individuals with disabilities who use dogs as service animals.

block quote end

More proposal details below:

block quote

"Species limitations ... The Department received many comments from individuals and organizations recommending species limitations. Several of these commenters

asserted that limiting the number of allowable species would help stop erosion of the public's trust, which has resulted in reduced access for many individuals

with disabilities who use trained service animals that adhere to high behavioral standards. Several commenters suggested that other species would be acceptable

if those animals could meet nationally recognized behavioral standards for trained service dogs. Other commenters asserted that certain species of animals

(e.g., reptiles) cannot be trained to do work or perform tasks, so these animals would not be covered. 

In the 

[Notice of Proposed Rulemaking]

, the Department used the term "common domestic animal" in the service animal definition and defined it to exclude reptiles, rabbits, farm animals (including

horses, miniature horses, ponies, pigs, or goats), ferrets, amphibians, and rodents. However, the term "common domestic animal" is difficult to define

with precision due to the increase in the number of domesticated species. Also, several state and local laws define a "domestic" animal as an animal that

is not wild. As a consequence, the Department has decided to limit title III's coverage of service animals to dogs, which are the most common service animals

used by individuals with disabilities.

The Department is compelled to take into account the practical considerations of certain animals and to contemplate their suitability in a variety of public

contexts, such as restaurants, grocery stores, hospitals, and performing arts venues, as well as suitability for urban environments. The Department agrees

with commenters' views that limiting the number and types of species recognized as service animals will provide greater predictability for public accommodations

as well as added assurance of access for individuals with disabilities who use dogs as service animals.

Wild animals, monkeys, and other non-human primates. Numerous business entities endorsed a narrow definition of acceptable service animal species, and asserted

that there are certain animals (e.g., reptiles) that cannot be trained to do work or perform tasks. Other commenters suggested that the Department should

identify excluded animals, such as birds and llamas, in the final rule. Although one commenter noted that wild animals bred in captivity should be permitted

to be service animals, the Department has decided to make clear that all wild animals, whether born or bred in captivity or in the wild, are eliminated

from coverage as service animals. The Department believes that this approach reduces risks to health or safety attendant with wild animals. Some animals,

such as certain nonhuman primates including certain monkeys, pose a direct threat; their behavior can be unpredictably aggressive and violent without notice

or provocation. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) issued a position statement advising against the use of monkeys as service animals,

stating that "[t]he AVMA does not support the use of nonhuman primates as assistance animals because of animal welfare concerns, and the potential for

serious injury and zoonotic [animal to human disease transmission] risks." See AVMA position statement, Nonhuman Primates as Assistance Animals (2005),

available at http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/nonhuman_primates.asp.

An organization that trains capuchin monkeys to provide in-home services to individuals with paraplegia and quadriplegia was in substantial agreement with

the AVMA's views but requested a limited recognition in the service animal definition for the capuchin monkeys it trains to provide assistance for persons

with disabilities. 

The organization commented that

 its trained capuchin monkeys undergo scrupulous veterinary examinations to ensure that the animal poses no health risks, and are used by individuals with

disabilities exclusively in their homes. The organization acknowledged that the capuchin monkeys it trains are not suitable necessarily for use in a place

of public accommodation but noted that the monkeys may need to be used in circumstances that implicate title III coverage, e.g., in the event the owner

or handler had to leave home due to an emergency, to visit a veterinarian, or for the initial delivery of the monkey to the individual with a disability.

This commenter argued that including capuchin monkeys under the service animal umbrella would make it easier for individuals with disabilities to obtain

reasonable modifications of state and local licencing, health, and safety laws that would permit the use of these monkeys. The organization argued that

this limited modification to the service animal definition was warranted in view of the services these monkeys perform, which enable many individuals with

paraplegia and quadriplegia to live and function with increased independence. 

The Department has considered the potential risks associated with the use of nonhuman primates as service animals in places of public accommodations as

well as the information provided to the Department about the benefits that trained capuchin monkeys provide to certain individuals with disabilities and

has determined that nonhuman primates, including monkeys, will not be recognized as service animals for purposes of this rule. However, state and local

governments may be required to accommodate home use of such monkeys by individuals with disabilities as discussed in connection with Â§ 35.136(a) of the

final rule for title II. 

Having considered all of the comments about which species should qualify as service animals under the ADA, the Department has decided to limit acceptable

species to dogs."

block quote end

ShareThis

Find more posts in: 

Politics

Medicine & Health   

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. Comments are moderated for spam, your comment may not appear immediately. Thanks for waiting.) 

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

Preview  Alt+v 

Post  Alt+s 

Having problems commenting? (UPDATED)

list of 5 items

ScienceBlogs home 

Last 24 Hours 

Syndication Feeds (RSS) 

Email Subscriptions 

The SB Weekly Recap 

list end

Blogs in the Network

All Blogs

Advertisement

Click here to find out more!  

Top Five: Most German

list of 5 items

1. Help the real scientists! [Kritisch gedacht] 

2. UFO-Angriff auf Windkraftanlage! [Frischer Wind] 

3. Wissenschaftler als Frösche und Vögel [Mathlog] 

4. Aung San Suu Kyi, Frieden 1991 [Nobel Faces] 

5. Nach dem Kohlendioxid das Quecksilber [Geograffitico]  

list end

More from ScienceBlogs.de

Search All Blogs 

search 

Peer-Reviewed Posts from Researchblogging.org

list of 5 items

1. Chocolate as Make-Up

Dr Shock MD PhD

2. Are funny ads worth the money? What makes ads memorable, and why

Cognitive Daily

3. Fisheries and food webs: a whole system approach to cod recovery

The EEB and flow

4. Aging brains lose their connections

Neurophilosophy

5. Sanger sequencing is not dead?

Genetic Future

list end

image

Powered by 

SMG Technology

Science News From:

Science News from NYTimes.com

list of 5 items

1. Theory Ties Radio Signal to Universeâ€™s First Stars

2. Japan Seeks Australiaâ€™s Help to Thwart Whaling Opponents

3. Dot Earth: Whale Wars and Bison Burgers

4. Scientist at Work | Rob Holman: So Much to Learn About the Oceans From Sand

5. Basics: A Large-Size Focus on Life Lived Small 

list end

Get more from NYTimes.com

The Latest From Seedmagazine.com

list of 1 items

Focus

list end

list of 2 items

News

Seed's Daily Zeitgeist: 8/7/2008

list end

list of 9 items

Magazine

Extending Darwinism

Of Primates and Personhood

The Seed State of Science 2008

Preserving Tranquility

Words on the Brain

The Mason's Apprentice

The Statistical Universe

Bacterial Foresight

list end

image 

 YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.

SEED issue 1 cover 

If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $19.95. If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice

and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.        

table with 3 columns and 4 rows

First Name:

Last Name:

Address:

City:

State:

Zip Code:

Email:

submit 

table end

(Non-U.S. subscribers, 

click here.)

Copyright ©2005-2009 ScienceBlogs LLC · 

Advertise with Seed

 · 

Privacy Policy

 · 

Terms & Conditions

 · 

Contact Us

 · 

Home

Social WebPostSend/Email

what's this? 

To ShareThis, click on a service below:

Reddit

Digg

Facebook

MySpace

Delicious

Stumbleupon

Buzz Up!

Mixx

Technorati

Google Bookmarks

Yahoo Bookmarks

Yahoo MyWeb

Windows Live

Propeller

FriendFeed

Newsvine

Xanga

LinkedIn

Blinklist

Furl

more  

images/powered-by

Sign In

Craig Borne, Esq.

Equal Opportunity Specialist

Disability Program Manager

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Office of Civil Rights

1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast  

Suite W43-321 

Washington, DC 20590

Office : (202) 493-0627

Fax: (202) 493–2990 

Email: craig.borne at dot.gov <mailto:craig.borne at dot.gov> 

The information contained in this communication (including any attachments) may be confidential and legally privileged. This email may not serve as a contractual agreement unless explicit written agreement for this purpose has been made. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication or any of its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender indicating that it was received in error and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. 