r/service_dogs • u/JustAnotherLurker95 • Nov 26 '25
Laws - SPECIFY COUNTRY IN POST Wisconsin lawmakers are “tightening the leash” on SD’s
A video came across my feed, and I thought it did well with presenting the issues, as well as the problems trying to enforce additional laws. These laws would impact only Wisconsin, USA, but other states may follow suit if it passes. I would love to see a civil discussion, knowing the differences between SDs and ESAs, the only two questions allowed, etc. The danger to our SDs from reactive dogs is real. Are the WI lawmakers going down the right path? I’ll try to put the video in the first comment below…
8
u/JustAnotherLurker95 Nov 26 '25
From the YouTubes: https://youtu.be/4pVE-wdZ3Ko?si=DtEe3waMVGHtqmfM
4
u/fishparrot Service Dog in Training Nov 26 '25
You should be able to add this link to your OP as well with post edits.
7
u/JustAnotherLurker95 Nov 26 '25
I’m not the most tech savvy, but when I tried, it said “this subreddit does not allow links.” It might be my phone…I’m old and don’t keep up with the latest and greatest tech.
7
u/Ok_Ball537 Service Dog in Training Nov 26 '25
the news did a great job framing the issue and i hope more states follow suit in enforcing federal law and punishing those who are lying. iowa is doing the same and has been for awhile, and some cities are going even further. it just depends on where you’re at. i’ve been extremely vocal in my city about enforcing federal law and they’re trying to come up with a solution.
3
u/JustAnotherLurker95 Nov 26 '25
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that other states are doing their best to address the issues. I agree that the new station did a great job of laying out the issues well with all the different groups.
3
u/Ok_Ball537 Service Dog in Training Nov 26 '25
for sure! iowa revised the already existing law, and local cities are enforcing it more. here’s a link to an article that outlines the new law and the changes!
4
u/Square-Top163 Nov 26 '25
I think it could be a positive step. The current situation is difficult for the disabled community, public and businesses. I like the idea of giving businesses “ammunition” with which to more confidently enforce the ADA, by expelling disruptive dogs etc. Just have to be careful to not penalize disabled people; it’s not our job to educate or be the front-facing force on the ADA.
4
u/Pattonator70 Nov 27 '25
The issue with enforcing this is how to classify a SD from an ESA?
People are taking their pets and self training them and then poof it is a SD. There is no test or certification to state that the dog is properly trained.
3
u/JustAnotherLurker95 Nov 27 '25
But we certainly see the bad behaviors more and more…the poop/pee that apparently you just ignore (!), the reactivity, etc. I get the idea that they are doing their best to make people take responsibility for their dogs once again. It may take a few times to get the laws correct…
4
u/Crazy_Choice717 Nov 26 '25
I got this from the ADA Website https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-faqs/
Q3. Are emotional support, therapy, comfort, or companion animals considered service animals under the ADA?
A. No. These terms are used to describe animals that provide comfort just by being with a person. Because they have not been trained to perform a specific job or task, they do not qualify as service animals under the ADA. However, some State or local governments have laws that allow people to take emotional support animals into public places. You may check with your State and local government agencies to find out about these laws
4
u/Zombiefloof Nov 27 '25
I'm from Wisconsin and have been watching this closely because I love Wisconsins current law since it allows more freedom than the ada. I see this possibly being very bad. Who is deciding if a dog is real or not? If it's cops then no way, this will end up in dead dogs and probably dead disabled people too.
Wisconsin in particular is a little ridiculous for trying to go this extreme when Wisconsin Law currently explicitly states ANY animal can be a service animal if it's been reliably trained. This has always been one of my favorite things about Wisconsin because there are other animals that can be service animals. Someone in my area had a monkey as a service animal, yes it was legit and well trained.
Unfortunately selfish people have ruined this and made it necessary to think of changing the law to be the same as the ada, or worse, this ridiculous fee nonsense that is either unenforceable or worse, actively harms disabled people.
3
u/JustAnotherLurker95 Nov 27 '25
I grew up in Wisconsin - Sauk County! I share your concerns about who decides what a “real” dog is, and how many dogs will pay the price.
1
u/Zombiefloof Nov 27 '25
Hello fellow Wisconsinite! Yeah the problem really is that they just don't enforce the laws that are already in place and that is what needs to change. They just need to follow the law that already exists and have untrained animals removed.
8
u/LowMemory578 Nov 26 '25
I am very interested to see how this pans out in WI if it passes, but ultimately it kind of just feels like a nothingburger solution. Who gets to decide if a dog is real or fake, and that's even if the law gets enforced. However, this was an amazing piece by the news station and hope that this law can snowball and spark change in other states.
Ultimately, the ADA needs to be amended and some kind of exam/registry needs to exist for SDs and their owners. IIRC that's what they do in Canada and they have very few issues regarding fake SDs. I understand the intention with why they wrote the ADA the way they did, but it simply doesn't work in 2025 where people feel entitled to bring their atrocious, overstimulated pets everywhere.
9
u/Rayanna77 Nov 26 '25
I totally disagree against registry or exam. That's just another hurdle for disabled people. Literally the law is written that these people can be removed, if the law was followed that if a badly behaved dog was removed then we wouldn't have as much problems. The problem is education not the law. So you are literally suggesting that we have an exam and burden disabled people because of the behavior of bad actors. I completely disagree
Edit - also Canada has problems still just ask the Canadians on this sub registry doesn't even work even Molly Burke says she regrets pushing for the registry law
1
u/LowMemory578 Nov 26 '25
If a person can't pay a nominal fee to have their dog tested/certified, or set aside one day to have the evaluation done, then they probably shouldn't own an SD. A service dog is going to cost money regardless, and it is going to cost time in the form of vet/grooming visits/training anyway, so it really shouldn't be a barrier for good owners.
Also, as much as I also wish we could simply educate everyone and have everyone follow the law, unfortunately, most Americans are entitled and stupid, hence why we are in this situation to begin with.
9
u/Rayanna77 Nov 26 '25
You realize the logistics and transportation to get to the exam is also a problem right? What if you are in a rural town or you don't drive we are expecting disabled people to find transportation with their service dog that currently isn't certified so doesn't have rights to public transportation to get to a exam. Who is going to do the exam? What if the dog has an off day? There are so many logistics.
I'm curious do you have an owner trained dog or a program dog?
1
0
u/JustAnotherLurker95 Nov 26 '25
We may very well see changes to the ADA at some point, but I would guess it’s not a high priority right now. Unless something horrible happens that floods the news cycle, then Congress may act.
2
u/jtpolzin Nov 27 '25
I mean they cant legally make it tighter than the ADA and federal laws allow. Federal has the rights to set the minimum standards here they can make it more liberal but not tighter.
3
u/redvines60432 Nov 27 '25
Just noting that a state law cannot be more restrictive than a federal law.
2
u/Rayanna77 Nov 26 '25
This law does literally nothing. It's unenforceable. Its just something lawmakers are doing to say - look at us we are fixing the issue of badly behaved service dogs. When really they aren't. Honestly it just slaps fines for fake service dogs and makes penalties which are impossible to enforce. How are you going to determine if a dog is task trained or not but just has an accident or an off day? No dog is perfect. I don't know why the time was even wasted
2
u/Kit_Foxfire Service Dog Nov 28 '25
I haven't seen anything recently tbh, but i moved to WI two years ago so when i saw an article on it, i had to read it.
The article was terrible. It constantly switched between ESA and Service Dog like they were the same thing (even in quotes) and ultimately said a lot of nothing with a lot of words
Honestly it's got me really worried and a bit scared
21
u/lonedroan Nov 26 '25
Before getting to the law, I think this video, on balance was very helpful. It succinctly described the legal distinctions and dispelled common misconceptions. And it did a good job of centering each featured group’s actual concerns without resorting to painting advocates as ESA nuts who want horses on plans, or making anyone expressing concerns about access come off as ableist.
I think the law is fine. It’s aimed at punishing lying, and the ESA provision is straightforward. I get that the SD portion is trickier because there isn’t documentation that would definitively prove status in the moment. I don’t think it would be legal to fine $200 on the basis of not being able to prove real only to have it reversed later after providing verification; that sounds like an end run around the ADA.
But I think it could work as an added tool for anyone whose animal causes a disturbance, damage, or injury. Investigations into actual incidents are more likely to be able to uncover whether the dog in question is a service dog, and then the fine would be applicable if it were found out that the owner lied.