The following comment is long, it involves substantial thinking about the problem, and trying to look at it from all angles. For those uninterested in the subject, I could suggest just stop reading now and save yourself the eyestrain ;o)
What is the purpose of a rule prohibiting canines in public places? The purpose is to prevent human injury and inconvenience due to allergies, biting, and poor behavior that interferes with the flow of traffic. Also, some people don't like pets, and others simply like enforcing rules for rules' sake, because they are power junkies.
Is this prohibition of canines effective in achieving this purpose? Sometimes. Since we know that many people, if not prohibited, would take poorly trained animals out in public which can be a menace to other dogs and people, cause injuries and accidents through tripping, leash entanglements, and run ins with toddlers and the like, it does have the effect of reducing such conflicts.
Are these rules effective to protect people with allergies? People with allergies are quick to raise a fuss, but when you examine the reality, they are already subject to animal dander and other allergens in the air from nearby homes, not to mention from wild animals inside the cities and the clothes of people in passing who have animals in their homes with them, so the real effect for them is not as clear.
Could the problems posed by pets in public places be managed better without an outright ban on pets in public places? Again, a good question. What do we know? We know that people *like* to take their pets out in public; we know this by the proliferation of dog parks and, in fact, if this phenomenon of 'fake service dogs' is really a genuine issue and not just an occasional annoyance, then it says that people feel strongly enough about having their pets with them that they are willing to chance embarrassment (if caught) or even a fine in order to have their pets. What else do we know? We know that handlers of SDs are expected to have their animals under control at all times, and to be certain they do not present a problem for other pedestrians. Here is the $64,000 question: If service dogs, in the performance of their duties, are considered to be acceptable companions in public, because of their high level of behavior, then in what way is it a) damaging to the reputation of genuine SD teams, and b) damaging to the public at large, if people 'fake it' with a non-SD that is nevertheless in absolute control and behaving properly in public? How does this tarnish our image, or are we more invested in the idea of our specialness than we are in the idea that we are not a detriment to public life?
What are the possible downsides of 'fake' service dogs? Obviously, the first that leaps to mind is poorly trained or totally untrained pets masquerading as SDs give us a bad reputation. We are a small segment of the overall population, and if it seems that giving us freedom to live our lives is causing an intolerable hardship for others, guess whose rights are going to be in the crapper. A 'fake' service dog whose owner allows the little monster to stand on the damn table at a restaurant and eat out of the dishes, is certainly doing us no favors. The owner of that establishment is going to be less inclined to be charitable the next time a *genuine* team comes into his place of business. However, as an aside, even a genuine SD who behaves that way can be asked to leave. It is part of the amended ADA ruling per March 15, 2011 that service animals that are 'out of control' can be asked to leave. So, there is no genuine downside for a *business* in permitting dog teams since any dog not behaving properly can be removed. Furthermore, the issue of people behaving inappropriately with animals in public is not reserved to NON-working teams; I have observed working teams who did things I thought were imprudent (i.e. parking a BIG dog in the aisle at a restaurant rather than between tables or under a table; such a position is a traffic hazard for others not likely to be looking down while carrying trays of food who could trip on the dog, etc) and I have seen service dogs who were a problem either through their own nervous behavior (whining, pacing etc) or that of their handler (constant interaction and talking to the animal in places such as theaters or classrooms where silence is expected, etc) so it's not just the fakers that cause us problems.
What is the downside to rules prohibiting canines in public places? The downside is that people who need to use animals as service aids for mobility or any other reason, are subject to significant impairment in their ability to go about their lives without challenge. Another downside is the calming effect that animals have on people is unavailable. Many studies have shown that the calming effect of, for example, therapy dogs, is not limited to those who actually interact with the dogs; stress levels of everyone present are lowered when pets are around. Also, because dogs are a rarity in public places, the mere fact of their existence is sufficient to tie up traffic and make the handlers subject to endless questions from passersby.
Do the needs of those with allergies trump those of people with disabilities who need these animals to function? There is a HUGE gray area. What is the comparable number of people affected, and should that be a consideration, i.e. are more people genuinely inconvenienced by service dogs due to severe allergies, than SD handlers affected by prohibition of their partners? Are there more people with severe allergies than there are with special needs for service dogs? Whose genuine needs are more important, and how can we balance this?
What is the cost to society in lost productivity, or the health problems caused by side effects of medications used because dogs are not available or present too many difficulties to use effectively? Good question. At this moment, no real answer but it does beg attention, does it not?
From my position, I have seen maybe two people that I was CERTAIN were faking it. Maybe a couple more that I wasn't sure but suspected. The bulk of the teams I have seen were good teams, working together well and a positive role model for the rest of us. I have, however, seen teams who worked together poorly, dogs that were unfocused and handlers who were clueless to either recognize their dog's behavior was out of line, or what to do to correct it. I've also seen handlers who clearly believed their status as 'disabled' allowed them latitude that I felt was unwarranted, etc. The simple fact is that disabled people come in all types just like everyone else and they are not all heroic people just trying to get through their day. There are some who are drama queens, and their disability gives them a podium, and their service animal an opportunity to publicly underscore how 'special' they are. Some disabled people are nice, some are happy, some depressed, some surly. I've seen issues raised in bathrooms for example, when a disabled person 'cops an attitude' because they don't believe the person occupying the disabled stall is 'disabled' enough or because they don't have a wheelchair. Not talking about when kids use the stalls or people go in there to change clothes; I am talking about people with canes or walkers or SDs who were bluntly told they needed to 'get out' and that they were 'not entitled' to use those stalls because the lady in the wheelchair had precedence. Uh, no. The stall is indeed designed with wheelchairs in mind (or at least should be) but there are ALL kinds of disabilities that require for example a handrail or enough space to park a walker, or any other 'equipment' and that includes an SD IMO. Others disagree, and can be rather vocal and hateful about it. *shrug* Not about to get into a 'my disability is bigger than yours' slugfest. No winners there.
At the end of the day, I think we need to focus on what makes a real difference in the lives of people in our society. There will always be fakers, just as there will always be thieves, etc. There are always those who do not think the rules apply to them. The mission is to see to it that the most people get the most good they can out of their lives, without making society break down. It would be nice if all people had manners, or a balanced sense of their place in the world, but they don't. I believe that giving too much attention to the fakers is a) more likely to increase the phenomenon; if we make a big deal out of how 'easy' it is, we are inviting others to try and get away with it, and b) we are trivializing how easy it is to get a SD to work reliably. Most of us know that it is NOT that easy, our partners are marvelous but they are not robots. They will shake or scratch at an inopportune moment, stick their nose in a walker, or 'crumb', just when you are SURE they would never do that, etc. Normal dog behaviors but still a problem in public, and they are GOING to happen no matter how well trained the dog is, you just cannot 'proof' for everything and still have a dog turned loose to work before it is past its prime.
At the same time, I am really against the idea of some kind of "ID" to prove a dog is a 'real SD.' I believe the reason that the ADA does NOT require this, is that the framers were wise enough to realize the real world downsides of such a requirement. a) easily faked, no matter how carefully designed, as Martha points out, many 16 yr olds can copy nearly anything, reliably enough that most would never know the difference from the 'official' version. (So can I, actually.) And yes, you have to show passes at a movie or what have you, but *so does everyone else.* Having to keep a SPECIAL pass on you, to be asked for anytime, anywhere, is IMO an unacceptable violation of my rights as an American to shop where I want, enter and exit public facilities as I want, without challenge or having to 'show my papers.' I do not believe that it is right or proper for SD teams to be forced to 'prove' their right to exist, anytime someone gets a wild hair.
Personally, I would rather see fakers with well behaved dogs get away with it, than to see genuine teams made so uncomfortable that they end up staying home so as not to be subjected to the grilling. JMO, YMMV, and as always my opinion with a dollar or so will get you a cup of coffee in your favorite restaurant...
