[nagdu] Do you really need to eat out with the dog?

Lyn Gwizdak linda.gwizdak at cox.net
Sun Feb 3 18:18:11 UTC 2013


This article souonds like they are saying that we need to think of others 
when we bring our dogs into a restaurant or store.  Or is it only talking 
about the little yappy things some people call "service dogs"?

Lyn and Landon

"Asking who's the man and who's the woman in an LGBT relationship is like 
asking which chopstick is the fork" - Unknown
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ginger Kutsch" <GingerKutsch at yahoo.com>
To: "NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users" 
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 6:29 AM
Subject: [nagdu] Do you really need to eat out with the dog?


> Do you really need to eat out with the dog?
>
> By Jean-Paul Laflamme, Redding, CA
>
> Record Searchlight
>
> Posted February 3, 2013
>
> URL:
> http://www.redding.com/news/2013/feb/03/jean-paul-laflamme-do-you-really-nee
> d-to-eat-out/
>
>
>
> I appreciate the incredible training a service dog undergoes and its
> incredible affection and protection it provides for its owner. These 
> amazing
> animals
>
> have been trained for only one purpose: to provide assistance to those in
> need. This emotional bond is a perfect example of the intelligence and
> fortitude
>
> these animals have. Never should a service dog be denied the ability to
> facilitate a comfortable, safe environment for its owner.
>
>
>
> Through my experience in our community, I have noticed an increase in 
> people
> that "have a need" of a service dog. This includes my outings for
> recreation,
>
> shopping and dining out. There are numerous occasions when the service dog
> is being held, in a shopping cart, or being pampered in a manner that 
> isn't
>
> part of a service dog's training. I am saddened and irritated by this
> development.
>
>
>
> As of March 15, 2011, the U.S. Justice Department issued a new set of
> regulations that define legal entitlements between service dogs and
> emotional support
>
> dogs. The regulations make clear that the mere "provision of emotional
> support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or
> tasks for
>
> purposes of the definition of service animal." For a dog to qualify as a
> service animal to an owner with a psychiatric disability under the new
> regulations,
>
> the dog must be trained to perform specific work or tasks: i.e., take 
> their
> medicine, providing safety checks or room searches for persons with PTSD,
> interrupting
>
> self-mutilation, etc.
>
>
>
> An exception is made for service animals in restaurants and grocery 
> stores,
> under reasonable accommodation under the assumption that the risk is
> minimal.
>
> A person with a small dog may prefer to keep their dog in their lap, but 
> it
> is not an absolute necessity. Reasonable accommodation means that you take
>
> all interests into account when evaluating a specific situation, not just
> whether the individual with a disability thinks it is reasonable from 
> their
> perspective,
>
> but whether it is reasonable for all. In the case of having the dog close 
> to
> the food (in a booth or chair or on a table), the business will lose even
>
> more customers, but for something that is not strictly necessary. This is
> unreasonable. It creates an undue (avoidable and excessive) burden for the
> business
>
> person.
>
>
>
> Now let's examine the individual service dog owner's wish to have their
> service dog in their lap/purse/carrier.
>
>
>
> This is not strictly necessary. A small service dog can sit or lie under 
> the
> table just the same as a service dog of any other size - and in fact, is
> better
>
> built to accomplish the task. Some owners will claim that their dog is not
> able to work from the floor.
>
>
>
> Since there is no legitimate job a small service dog can do that a larger
> one cannot also do, including "alerting," this is a problem of the owner's
> own
>
> creation. It is not reasonable to expect a restaurant to compensate for 
> the
> handler's lack of foresight or poor choice in dog. There is not a task or
> disability
>
> that specifically requires that the dog be tiny or large. A person is free
> to make that choice, but they are not free to inflict added burden on 
> others
>
> because of that choice.
>
>
>
> As a proprietor to a local restaurant, I ask you to please take into 
> account
> your fellow patrons. Yes, I understand you love your dog - I own three - 
> but
>
> not everyone sees your miniature four-legged friend as a shopping pal,
> dining partner and extreme confidante. Leave the canines and kibbles at
> home. The
>
> entire service industry will thank you.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nagdu:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/linda.gwizdak%40cox.net 





More information about the NAGDU mailing list