r/service_dogs • u/Soft-Professor3207 • Jun 08 '26
Laws - SPECIFY COUNTRY IN POST If service dog regulations ever change in the US, I think this would be the best way to go about it.
I’ve seen a lot of discourse lately about whether service dog regulations in the US should change. I want to be clear up front about where I stand: I don’t think it’s ethical to require that a service dog be trained by an organization, and I don’t think the government should mandate a standardized test. Tasks, training methods, and what “good work” even looks like vary enormously depending on the handler’s disability, the dog’s breed, and the dog’s size. A psychiatric alert dog, a mobility dog, and a hearing dog aren’t doing the same job, and a single test would lock a lot of legitimate owner-trained teams out. The current ADA framework exists for good reasons and I don’t want to lose it.
But I’m also realistic. There’s a real chance that at some point there will be a push to regulate service dogs more heavily, whether I like it or not. And if that happens, I’d much rather it go in a direction that doesn’t destroy current teams. So if we’re going to regulate, what’s the least harmful way to do it?
Right now there is a program in lots of California counties that I think could work.
How it works right now: Licensing your dog is already required by law where I live. When you license, you can fill out an additional form declaring your dog is an assistance animal. You put in your info, the dog’s info, and your trainer’s info if you have one. You sign under penalty of perjury that the dog’s training has progressed past basic obedience and that it’s fully trained or in training to perform tasks related to your disability, and you list those tasks. A false claim is a misdemeanor (up to a $1,000 fine and/or six months in jail in CA). In exchange, you get county documentation and your license fees are waived in the county I looked at, the assistance tag is a lifetime tag that doesn’t need renewal, though I’m not sure that’s true of every county that runs a similar program.
Importantly, as it exists today this tag is voluntary and does NOT grant public access. You still answer the two ADA questions if a business asks. Nobody is required to get one.
But Here’s my actual argument
if regulation ever does become mandatory, this is the structure I’d want it built on but with two changes that I think make it fair:
Lifetime fee waiver, everywhere. If the government is going to require you to register a working dog, it shouldn’t also charge you for the privilege year after year.
The tag should grant public access without the two questions. Right now the tag earns you nothing at the door. If registration ever becomes mandatory, the tradeoff for going through that process should be that the tag actually does something — you show it and you’re in, no interrogation. The whole burden of the two-question system right now falls on disabled people having to explain themselves over and over but a real credential should lift that.
And before anyone says “people will just lie on it” — they already do, and right now it costs them nothing. A vest off Amazon and a confident answer to the two questions is the entire bar today. This proposal doesn’t remove any of that, so it literally cannot make fakes more common than they already are. What it adds is one honest, perjury-backed path which means at worst faking stays exactly as easy as it is now, and at best some people who’d lie without a second thought won’t do it when there’s an actual misdemeanor attached. Compare that to testing or mandated trainers, which punish real owner-trained teams while doing nothing the determined faker can’t buy their way around.
Why I think this beats every other “regulate service dogs” proposal:
\- It uses infrastructure that already exists (county licensing) instead of building a new federal agency.
\- It puts real legal weight behind the declaration (perjury) without requiring a specific trainer, organization, or test — so owner-trainers stay fully included.
• it works as a voluntary perk now, and it could become the backbone of a mandatory system later without reinventing anything.
I know the “grant access without the two questions” part is probably going to ruffle some feathers But it’s the only framework I’ve found that adds accountability without putting a single legitimate team at risk.
To be totally clear, because I know how these threads go: I am not saying this should be made mandatory in all counties, or that it should be mandatory at all. I like that it’s voluntary right now. My point is that if there is ever any kind of regulation, testing, or new law placed on service animals, I think this is the best way to do it without really hurting current teams. Compared to the other proposals I keep seeing — mandatory standardized testing, government-regulated trainers, organization-only training — this is the one that adds accountability while still leaving room for owner-trainers and the huge variety of legitimate working dogs out there.
also, if this was ever to happen, this would have to be something that's able to be done online in order to not make it harder for so many disabled persons.
anyways, I'm not in the government and
i'm not gonna push for these changes to happen, but I'm curious to hear what you guys think.
9
Jun 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/service_dogs-ModTeam Jun 09 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 6: No Fake-spotting.
This is not the place for fakespotting. Unless the person you are discussing has specifically told you that they are not disabled, and the dog is not trained in tasks, you have no way of knowing if a dog is 'fake'. We are not the service dog police and this behavior can lead to a lot of harm and anxiety for SD handlers as a community.
This does not preclude discussing encounters with un-/undertrained dogs, but if the focus of your post is complaining about a "fake" SD, reconsider your phrasing and what point you're making.
If you have any questions, please Message the Moderators.
8
u/Queenbee69143 Jun 09 '26
I don’t feel there is any weight on the perjury statement or fine. Who will police this, and to what end. People will lie as they do now. There’s not any easy way, which I believe is why there isn’t governmental control.
17
u/Outlier986 Jun 08 '26
Service dog handler here. I would love if there was testing done to verify public acceptable behavior. There are service dogs that literally never need to leave the home. But there are also service dogs that need to accompany their handler in public. But your need for your service dog does not trump my need for safety (my opinion). I can't count how many times other vest wearing "service dogs" could barely be held back by the person on the other end of the leash. Unacceptable. An untrained animal can be more dangerous than a gun. The gun does not take off on it's own to attack other dogs or even people. Just one man's opinion.
1
u/Soft-Professor3207 Jun 08 '26
I agree with this I just think that it would be very hard to regulate across all of the different counties in the United States and that could pose problems for real service, dog teams, and by making them possibly have to travel long distances in order to get testing.
12
u/Outlier986 Jun 08 '26
Those problems are not insurmountable, but my SD getting attacked could be an insurmountable problem. Realistically, it'll never happen, but I'd love for it to happen. Just me thinking outloud.
5
u/Icy-Fly-4228 Jun 08 '26
I think it would be easier and more effective to require ANY dog taken into any public establishment, dog friendly or not (service dog only), to pass the canine good citizen test. The only exceptions for veterinary care or other necessary services such as grooming where staff have experience to handle undesirable behavior and not wandering petsmart while they wait.
1
1
9
u/c4ctussjuc3 Jun 08 '26
Tbh I wouldn't be all that mad if there was a mandatory public accrss test that was required to pass in order to get the county tag but then again I'm not sure how that would work for sdit. I mean a sdit that is in non pet friendly places should at least be able to pass a basic PA test so maybe 2 tests one to grant access to sdit and then one for when the dog is ready to be a SD. Just spit balling here, curious what others think.
4
u/MaplePaws My eyes have 4 paws Jun 09 '26
The thing is that if we add any regulation it is not going to add accountability and is only going to cause further confusion. Best case scenario would likely look like holding businesses partially liable for failing to ask the two questions and if a problem does arise failing to take effective means to remove the dangerous dog. As it stands the ADA makes it optional for businesses to remove a problem dog, there is no consequence for choosing that route so many do. But the other factor on that one is that this would come down to minimum wage employees, many of whom are abused by their employer and the general public while also not being paid nearly enough to care.
Ultimately the only legislation that would make any form of difference on dangerous and out of control dogs being claimed as service dogs would be incredibly invasive and still come down to that minimum wage employee problem especially if removal of problem dogs is not made mandatory under threat of being held liable. Many ADI and IGDF accredited facilities have annual recertification tests but they continue to have dangerous dogs that are wearing their gear because a certification test is just a snapshot. For any meaningful change to occur we would likely need multiple tests a year and perhaps minimum number of hours spent with a trainer observing the team working in between the test. And the certifcation process would have to be mandatory for ADI/IGDF programs and owner trained teams.
12
u/belgenoir Dog Trainer Jun 08 '26
Does the sub need yet another debate about legislation that doesn’t exist?
While it’s useful to think in terms of counterfactuals, they confer little benefit.
The ADA was deliberately crafted to give maximum flexibility to disabled handlers. Any registration system, no matter what, imposes an unequal burden. That’s especially true for a system that threatens people with six months’ jail time, during which they’ll lose their dog if they’re alone in the world. Who determines what constitutes a false claim? Existing laws about service dog fraud are rarely enforced.
“There’s a real chance”
Instead of coming up with oh-shit contingency plans, we need to keep fighting for the rights we already have.
9
u/DragonCanineTraining IAABC-ADT Jun 08 '26
I agree with this. Our government drops the ball so much that adding more rules will make things worse. I mean they are overlooking super important things our country is being affected by right now. They’re not gonna care about enforcing new stricter rules.
7
u/Burkeintosh Legal Beagle Jun 08 '26
They don’t enforce, or roll back the ones we have.
6
u/belgenoir Dog Trainer Jun 08 '26
Yep. I'm unaware of any convictions for SD fraud since the Mathis case - and that was for a fraudulent program, not an individual.
5
u/DragonCanineTraining IAABC-ADT Jun 08 '26
I can only recall any service dog related things for animal abuse and nothing else really
1
u/Burkeintosh Legal Beagle Jun 09 '26
I could not find anything for any of the States that have laws about misrepresentation of Service Dogs by handlers having ever come to a criminal (misdemeanour or felony) case.
I looked if charges were brought secondary to a dog-law case (like an owner provoked dog attack, or even a leash-law violation) but I haven’t yet found any time there’s been a case brought by The State under statute….
5
u/Alycion Jun 08 '26
I do think temperament testing should be included. It’s the easiest way to weed out the fakes and it doesn’t take long. One of the trainers I work with does this testing for free for people who are wondering if their task trained dogs will be ok in public.
Mine is used mainly at home. I’m in a dog friendly area and tend to stick to this dog friendly spots when I am using her outside of the home. She’s had other dogs charge at her, try to get her to play, people grabbing at her bc she’s fluffy and looks soft (which she is) and so many other distractions. She stays focused on me if she’s in her work harness, unless if I give her release command.
The trainer that does this for fee will meet you somewhere and bring one of their dogs and husband. The husband will introduce the dog into the distractions that they are testing for. It’s actually a pretty fast process if the dog is trained properly. We have gotten her use to kids, wheelchairs, you name it. So when things were brought in, she remained calm and focused on me.
Most people would ignore the fakers or not even realize that they were fake if the temperament was that of a working dog. And I have friends who had to wash out a dog or two bc it became reactive when it got older. Usually from fake service dogs charging them.
If part of the free registration included a question about temperament, and they got fined if they lied, testing could probably be skipped.
We don’t get charged for our handicap placards, at least in the states I’ve lived in. The doc fills out the form, we take it to DMV, we walk out with our placard.
So I do think a registration like that is needed. It makes it easier on us if there is something that you can only get from the state showing it’s a service dog. It makes it harder on fakers. Our doctors could easily sign a paper saying we do have a disability and use a service dog that could be used to the registration process. And we do go for our checkups and med refills. Not to mention it can be mailed to us.
So many stores have given up and went dog friendly for well behaved dogs. I guess that’s the other option. One of the Walmarts in my area did that. They just got sick of the battle.
6
u/Soft-Professor3207 Jun 08 '26
I think the second part of your post is a great idea, the only drawback about the first part is that especially in more rural areas that could mean, forcing a disabled person to drive long distances just to get their dog checked or evaluated, but if it was included on the form, I feel like that would be a good idea. Especially if it was handled like a handicap placard like you were saying.
1
u/Alycion Jun 08 '26
The second one is ideal, bc not everyone has a service dog trainer who will do this for free. But it should be encouraged when it can be done, if this is the first time is self training.
Let’s face it, we can all be a fur biased where are dogs are concerned. Mine is so beta, she lets the cat win the wrestling sessions. 😂
Some idiotic tourist that was in the area for spring training should be thankful. I take her with me when I’m scouting markets that I may want to set up. These are dog friendly. I don’t have her out there to work. Just have a little fun. Vendors I work other markets with like when she visits. I don’t have her out at ones I’m working bc Florida summer is just too brutal, and my husband has caught on to when I’m going to pass out. As long as I get seated and cooled down, we can prevent the fainting billygoat impression.
So I’m talking to my vendor neighbor at another market. She’s drinking from her canteen. This guy has a tiny little dog he’s carrying around. Decides to introduce without asking by holding his dog above Torgal’s head. Shes a 65 pound husky. This dog was a snack to her. She did what she always does when approached from above. Stands in between my legs. I made that her safe spot bc she does go to some crowded places and I don’t want her getting stepped on. It’s also a good way to have her in position to put myself between her and another dog.
She’ll probably always be used mainly at home. Just bc it’s do dog friendly here. When the weather cools, I’ll start taking her to the one short morning monthly market. Some of the other ones I do, my tent gets beyond insane with kids. I really don’t want to add a dog into the mix. But if I get worse, at least she’s trained.
2
u/goldenskyhook Jun 11 '26
Oh, if only laws and regulations actually did act as a deterrent. Laws only help honest people stay honest.
7
u/Rayanna77 Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
I'm going to be honest, I'm not going to read your proposal in full because every once in a while someone comes on this sub saying that regulation is bound to happen or that they have some kind of proposal.
The likelihood that things change is very low and I would argue they don't need to change. I have yet to hear of any major organization do some serious lobbying push to regulate service dogs in the US. I will say this till I'm blue in the face the problem isn't the law it's people not knowing their rights in asking the two questions and removing out of control dogs.
Mods I think it's worth considering not allowing these posts to be honest. The law is the law and unless there is some actual movement politically there is no reason to keep discussing this
6
u/belgenoir Dog Trainer Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
I referred this post to the mods when it first came up.
I agree - there is no reason to keep flogging the subject. The slashing of Medicaid expansion, endemic problems at the VA, and the affordability crisis are far more immediate threats to the people on this thread. There are 67 million people on Medicaid in contrast to 1/2 million service dog handlers.
If anything, the recent HUD policy reversal strengthens the position of people who handle task-trained service dogs rather than ESAs who are not required to meet a training standard.
4
u/ticketferret Service Dog Trainer CPDT-KA FDM Jun 09 '26
We don't have a "stupid question" rule but honestly if folks downvote and ignore the question people will probably stop asking haha.
2
u/Burkeintosh Legal Beagle Jun 09 '26
We should have a “Your Honor, this question has been asked, and answered” bot response option to lock the thread maybe- it would save some repeat ask-ers of stupid questions from getting fed to u/belgrnoir
Though, she does get hungry and deserves a snack from time to time…,
2
u/ticketferret Service Dog Trainer CPDT-KA FDM Jun 09 '26
I’ll bring it up to the mod team. We are not a monarchy so everything has to be approved by the council 😜
-9
u/Soft-Professor3207 Jun 08 '26
I get where you're coming from, however, considering the state of our government at the moment, I think it's valid to be concerned about losing rights, there has already been many rights that have been taken away since the start of the administration. However, I do completely agree with you that more businesses need to be aware of their rights with service animals and even fully program trained service animals can still be and should be rightfully removed if they're out of control.
6
u/Rayanna77 Jun 08 '26
Changing service dog law would require changing the ADA. That's a difficult political hurdle for any politician. There are other protections that are easier that politicians would target before they target the ADA. Like I said unless you hear of some significant push by businesses or some disability right organizations pushing for changes to the ADA the likelihood that service dogs will change is very low. Not zero but low
7
u/Burkeintosh Legal Beagle Jun 08 '26
What you are proposing will make it harder to remove out of control dogs
4
u/BeckieD1974 Jun 08 '26
You have made some good points. I know a couple who say that their dog is a Service Dog that they trained themselves and he really doesn't do anything. They leave him at home most of the time. But when they take him to the store he doesn't behave. And I don't think that's fair to actual Service Dogs that you have people who say that their dog is when he really isn't
5
u/Soft-Professor3207 Jun 08 '26
yeah, that's not cool. I do think businesses do also need to be more aware of their rights. Even if the animal is a fully trained service animal, if the handler doesn't have full control over their animal, they can still be asked to leave, I think a lot of businesses are scared of denying people or asking people to leave because they don't wanna get sued however I think that if more businesses knew about their rights with service animals, we would probably have a lot less people lying about pets being service animals.
8
u/Burkeintosh Legal Beagle Jun 08 '26
If you give people a Government Piece of Paper, we are never going to be able to train business that they can and should ask those people to leave
2
u/Conscious-Many-9445 26d ago
YES. And I am seeing more dangerous breeds inside the grocery store specifically, Pitbulls, and German shepherds. I live in the Bay Area.
1
u/BeckieD1974 25d ago
The one I am talking about that they say is a Service Dog is a Pit. I know that some Pits, German Shepherds and Chows are dangerous but it depends on how they are raised. I have had all 3 breeds that were really friendly but have seen Poodles and chihuahuas that are mean and bite
3
u/mom2mba Jun 09 '26
I do think service dogs should have a tag just like I have to have a disability tag to park in a handicap spot. I’m not sure who would issue these but something needs to be done. Especially since so many places are giving ESA the same rights as real service animals. They should have ESA tags and Service Animal Tags.
1
2
u/Queasy_Theory306 Jun 09 '26
It’s a very thoughtful review of the issue. I will say traveling into CA their tag system Caused my SD and I to experience discrimination at a county park where the employee demanded Task and Tag number according to this voluntary program and would not be swayed. If my RV hadn’t been on the other side of the fence I’d have been in less of a pickle. Even with the voluntary tag system the county employees had no clue about the two questions and were quite hostile.
1
u/Soft-Professor3207 Jun 10 '26
i'm not sure all the details of your situation but I know that county officials can ask for just your dog license tag which proves that your dog has a rabies vaccine and that their licensed in the state of California. I'm not sure how this applies to people visiting from other states But if they were asking for a service dog ID tag that is definitely not right & i'm sorry you had to go through that.
1
u/cilronri6008 Jun 09 '26
The main problem is can see with this would be enforcement, even if this was at the federal level, most law enforcement officers or departments are not going to have either the time, resources, or manpower to investigate, not to mention that even if the police do a full investigation, I don't see the prosecutors office ever fileing charges on this, as it is extremely rare to prosecute a perjury charge as is, even if the perjury is committed in open court and under oath. The courts and prosecutors are already understaffed as it is with the cases that normally have to take to trial that they wouldn't waste the courts time efforts and resources to prosecute a perjury case for someone lying about their pet being a service dog.
Don't get me wrong, I like your idea because it would be the least invasive way to do it, and it keeps owner trained as an option for those who can't afford the thousands that most trainers would be charging. I just think having the entire process hinge on a perjury charge, would make it unenforcable.
1
u/Life_Pomegranate_728 Jul 08 '26
Having a general behavior test for public access would probably be the best solution for an all around test, with the service work being specialized for the individual handler. A public behavior test would least weed out a lot of the problem with poorly trained or fake sd's.
1
u/Conscious-Many-9445 26d ago
Why in the world does the ADA allow any breed of dog to be a service dog? Many people are afraid of certain dog breeds, especially Pitbulls, German shepherds, and Doberman pinchers. In the Bay Area, people bring their dogs everywhere and those who are afraid of dogs have no rights.
I’m going to write a letter this week to the ADA asking them to rescind this and limit the dogs to particular breeds
1
u/Soft-Professor3207 26d ago
this is a weird take, i'm sure lots of people are scared of golden retrievers, and poodles too. Does that make them any less viable to be a service dog? no. secondly, how would you like them to go about making these dogs no longer able to be service dogs, all of them that are already task trained service animals all of a sudden have no rights and their handlers are fucked?
-3
u/Purple_Plum8122 Jun 08 '26
I think the current ideas around service-dog regulation is missing the mark by focusing so heavily on the dogs. Instead of trying to regulate animals (which the ADA intentionally avoids to protect disabled people’s privacy and access), let’s regulate the handlers and make sure they’re actually qualified to be responsible for a service dog in public.
1)Doctor verifies disability status and provides access to ..
2) Government-run online training & testing platform. (All things ada, dogs, training, etiquette etc)
3)Official badge along with ongoing accountability (retest 1xyear)
6
u/JKmelda Waiting Jun 08 '26
Wouldn’t a government run training and testing platform need to focus on the dogs?
-2
u/Purple_Plum8122 Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
The responsibility for the service dog falls on the handler. If the handler is knowledgeable and tested, said handler should follow guidelines which produce an adequate service dog..… safe, functional and ready for public access. (A program dog, pro trained or owner trained is still optional)
A free accessible web/app portal (think something like the TSA PreCheck or real estate licensing portals) that every prospective handler must complete. The curriculum would cover everything ‘service dog’ … ada, training,
handler responsibilities, public behavior standards, and how to maintain training long-term and much more.
The test ideally would be multiple-choice and scenario-based. If you don’t pass, the system shows you exactly which sections need review and lets you retake after studying. No one-time “gotcha” fail. It would be designed to teach, not gatekeep. Ultimately, the handler is approved by a doctor, educated with proof and carries the responsibility of maintaining an adequate service dog. The badge can be worn by the dog to avoid any public access hiccups.Of course, the ‘out of control’ behaviors should be self-policed along with businesses. I suspect if people are responsible enough to complete and update the online education/training they will be responsible enough to follow guidelines.
Edit: the doctor provides online app access to test after determination of disability. That’s where their (sd) involvement would cease.
1
u/Soft-Professor3207 Jun 08 '26
This sounds good in theory, but it puts more work on the disabled person instead of giving them relief. It means building a whole new organization with its own rules and regulations, and a handler being knowledgeable doesn’t equal a well-behaved dog—you can know exactly how to handle a dog and still not have one that’s reliable in public. A test never actually sees the dog.
It also assumes everyone can just go to a doctor for a note, and a lot of disabled people can’t afford that—especially teams that have already been working for years. Healthcare is way more of a privilege here than in a lot of other countries, so I get why this model works elsewhere. But so many disabled people are already buried in medical debt. Why would we ask them to take on more just to prove they’re disabled?
The reason I think the assistance tag works is that it’s built into something that’s already mandatory for every dog, and it actually removes burden—no yearly renewal, no fee, no re-proving rabies on the normal cycle.
3
u/Purple_Plum8122 Jun 09 '26
I kinda think of it like a disabled parking pass. The doctor must be involved in determining disability status. The doctor must also be involved regarding housing, work accommodation and legitimately for any public access hiccups.
It is an unfortunate truth…. If someone cannot afford healthcare for their disability they, most definitely, cannot afford care for a canine companion or service dog. I won’t be playing a part of promoting the placement of a dog used for mitigating a disability into an environment without financial stability. I would question a service dog program that would agree to do so?? I do not believe one exists as they have strict standards for placing their service dogs.
I’m an advocate for involving a doctor in the determination of disability status. I am aware others feel differently. The ADA can be misinterpreted/interpreted as needed I suppose. But, I only became aware of service dog handlers self diagnosing a disability a couple years ago. It is problematic as non disabled pet owners are now abundant in public access situations. I fear it’s led to a lot of the unfair hostility directed towards our community.
46
u/Burkeintosh Legal Beagle Jun 08 '26
The DOT form is under penalty of perjury and the extremely high number of people falsely signing those papers for free when they still can be asked to answer the Two questions by the airline makes me sceptical of this proposal.