Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plot twist - ADA.gov says service dogs are not required to wear a vest or other ID that states they are a service dog.

That being said, I still don’t think it was one after hearing that the daughter adopted the dog out to another family.

They are not, but service animals are required to be trained to perform a specifically medical task. And it is legal to ask what task the animal is trained to perform. "Because I get lonely" or "because I get anxiety" are not medical assistance or tasks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it were an actual service animal, the family would have very likely disclosed the reasoning among other details. Ie, "grandfather of 4 with history of seizures."

This was almost certainly a pet that someone decided to call their "service animal." And regardless, the animal was transported improperly on the train--even if it was a legitimate service animal.

That is wildly untrue. The family shouldn't have to disclose the specific disability in order to be believed. They said it was a service animal. Why do you require disabled people to disclose medical information to you in order to believe them?

Because so many people abuse laws and regulations regarding service animals, and it negatively affects people who really need service animals for legitimate medical assistance. And there's zero indication that the man was disabled - where are you getting this information?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it were an actual service animal, the family would have very likely disclosed the reasoning among other details. Ie, "grandfather of 4 with history of seizures."

This was almost certainly a pet that someone decided to call their "service animal." And regardless, the animal was transported improperly on the train--even if it was a legitimate service animal.

That is wildly untrue. The family shouldn't have to disclose the specific disability in order to be believed. They said it was a service animal. Why do you require disabled people to disclose medical information to you in order to believe them?

Because so many people abuse laws and regulations regarding service animals, and it negatively affects people who really need service animals for legitimate medical assistance. And there's zero indication that the man was disabled - where are you getting this information?

All the articles are reporting that his family is saying it's a service dog.

Just because the family says it's a service dog, doesn't mean that it is. It almost certainly was not.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it were an actual service animal, the family would have very likely disclosed the reasoning among other details. Ie, "grandfather of 4 with history of seizures."

This was almost certainly a pet that someone decided to call their "service animal." And regardless, the animal was transported improperly on the train--even if it was a legitimate service animal.

That is wildly untrue. The family shouldn't have to disclose the specific disability in order to be believed. They said it was a service animal. Why do you require disabled people to disclose medical information to you in order to believe them?

Because so many people abuse laws and regulations regarding service animals, and it negatively affects people who really need service animals for legitimate medical assistance. And there's zero indication that the man was disabled - where are you getting this information?

All the articles are reporting that his family is saying it's a service dog.

Just because the family says it's a service dog, doesn't mean that it is. It almost certainly was not.

+1

Service dogs are incredibly well-trained and compliant. This dog was not.

Were you THERE???

Anonymous wrote:Plot twist - ADA.gov says service dogs are not required to wear a vest or other ID that states they are a service dog.

That being said, I still don’t think it was one after hearing that the daughter adopted the dog out to another family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it were an actual service animal, the family would have very likely disclosed the reasoning among other details. Ie, "grandfather of 4 with history of seizures."

This was almost certainly a pet that someone decided to call their "service animal." And regardless, the animal was transported improperly on the train--even if it was a legitimate service animal.

That is wildly untrue. The family shouldn't have to disclose the specific disability in order to be believed. They said it was a service animal. Why do you require disabled people to disclose medical information to you in order to believe them?

Is the family going to give the service animal to another person who needs one?

The story I read said the daughter found a family to adopt it because she couldn’t keep it because she has other pets.

Anonymous wrote:Plot twist - ADA.gov says service dogs are not required to wear a vest or other ID that states they are a service dog.

That being said, I still don’t think it was one after hearing that the daughter adopted the dog out to another family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story is horribly tragic.

Service dogs stay religiously by their owners side with little to no distance between them. I don't think this was a true service dog, likely a "mental support" animal. A true service animal would have followed him out the door.

This. A "service animal" is not the same as a Service Animal. No person with a legitimate medical need for a service animal would use a waist leash.

There is a woman in my neighborhood who has both arms amputated. She has a service dog who does things like open doors, and retrieve items. She uses a waist leash.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it were an actual service animal, the family would have very likely disclosed the reasoning among other details. Ie, "grandfather of 4 with history of seizures."

This was almost certainly a pet that someone decided to call their "service animal." And regardless, the animal was transported improperly on the train--even if it was a legitimate service animal.

That is wildly untrue. The family shouldn't have to disclose the specific disability in order to be believed. They said it was a service animal. Why do you require disabled people to disclose medical information to you in order to believe them?

Because so many people abuse laws and regulations regarding service animals, and it negatively affects people who really need service animals for legitimate medical assistance. And there's zero indication that the man was disabled - where are you getting this information?

All the articles are reporting that his family is saying it's a service dog.

Just because the family says it's a service dog, doesn't mean that it is. It almost certainly was not.

+1

Service dogs are incredibly well-trained and compliant. This dog was not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many different types of real service dogs, not just for blind people. The take that it couldn’t be a service dog is premature.

Seizure, diabetic, and PTSD dogs aren’t necessarily obvious but can be lifesaving.

But who ties themselves to their dog? That’s such a weird thing that it makes it seem more likely it was a service dog to me.

Most are now bullshit “emotional support animals.”

People are just exploiting a loop-hole to take their dogs places they would otherwise not be allowed.

Someone got up on the a$$hole side of the bed this morning.

It’s true though. Now every entitled person in town think they should be allowed to have their emotional support peacock fly on a plane or whatever because they got some certificate from some online mill for $50. It’s an absolute mockery of actual people with disabilities and their highly trained service animals.

I will withhold judgment in this case until more facts come to light. But if this was a pet or “emotional support” animal brought on the train without any formal training/appropriate apparatus to control the dog’s location next to the owner, then I just can’t find WMATA at fault here. This isn’t a PetCo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story is horribly tragic.

Service dogs stay religiously by their owners side with little to no distance between them. I don't think this was a true service dog, likely a "mental support" animal. A true service animal would have followed him out the door.

This. A "service animal" is not the same as a Service Animal. No person with a legitimate medical need for a service animal would use a waist leash.

There is a woman in my neighborhood who has both arms amputated. She has a service dog who does things like open doors, and retrieve items. She uses a waist leash.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many different types of real service dogs, not just for blind people. The take that it couldn’t be a service dog is premature.

Seizure, diabetic, and PTSD dogs aren’t necessarily obvious but can be lifesaving.

But who ties themselves to their dog? That’s such a weird thing that it makes it seem more likely it was a service dog to me.

Most are now bullshit “emotional support animals.”

People are just exploiting a loop-hole to take their dogs places they would otherwise not be allowed.

Someone got up on the a$$hole side of the bed this morning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it were an actual service animal, the family would have very likely disclosed the reasoning among other details. Ie, "grandfather of 4 with history of seizures."

This was almost certainly a pet that someone decided to call their "service animal." And regardless, the animal was transported improperly on the train--even if it was a legitimate service animal.

That is wildly untrue. The family shouldn't have to disclose the specific disability in order to be believed. They said it was a service animal. Why do you require disabled people to disclose medical information to you in order to believe them?

Because so many people abuse laws and regulations regarding service animals, and it negatively affects people who really need service animals for legitimate medical assistance. And there's zero indication that the man was disabled - where are you getting this information?

All the articles are reporting that his family is saying it's a service dog.

Just because the family says it's a service dog, doesn't mean that it is. It almost certainly was not.

+1