Furry and four-legged debate

I stood under the awning, sheltered from the rain, waiting to be seated, both my stomach and patience nearly running on empty. To pass the time, I began watching the diners on the nearby patio. My eye was immediately drawn to a table where a young woman sat, seemingly enjoying her meal while cradling a poodle in one arm! My initial response was one of disgust and outrage. Surely this must be some kind of health code violation. Not wearing any kind of identification, this couldn't have been a service dog. What on earth was it doing at a restaurant?

This incident was well over a year ago, but since then I've heard and read more about the debate over defining a service animal and even the murky and ambiguous definitions of the term "disabled."

The Americans with Disabilities Act defines a service animal as "any guide dog, signal dog or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. If they meet this definition, animals are considered service animals under the ADA regardless of whether they have been licensed or certified by state or local government."

What this means is that any kind of certification or regulation is not required. The good, law abiding and disabled citizens who are willing to go through the necessary red tape, may have to wait up to a year to receive a licensed and certified service animal.

Unfortunately, as long as there are the honest people, there will always be those who will look for the loopholes and find ways to take advantage of the system.

While the ADA defines a disabled person as anyone who "has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such an impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment," this definition is vague at best.

It seems that a paraplegic or a visually impaired person can genuinely benefit from having a service animal. But beyond those with merely physical limitations, what about the more mental and emotional impairments, the ones that might not be as easily noticeable by the public? How can a service animal benefit those people? The shell-shocked soldier returning from war may find comfort in his dog, but does that make the dog a service animal? Technically, it can, provided the dog is "individually trained to provide assistance."

Perhaps the poodle I saw that rainy evening was indeed a service dog on the job, though it was difficult to tell without any identification. But according to the ADA, "Some, but not all, service animals wear special collars and harnesses. Some, but not all, are licensed or certified and have identification papers. If you are not certain that an animal is a service animal, you may ask the person who has the animal if it is a service animal required because of a disability. However, an individual who is going to a restaurant or theater is not likely to be carrying documentation of his or her medical condition or disability."

If this is the case, then it would be entirely possible for someone to claim they have a disability (not needing to carry any proof of it), just to be able to bring their animal (who also doesn't need any identification) everywhere.

At the risk of potentially wading into the dangerous waters of discrimination, I really do think these laws need to be fine-tuned. Am I saying that disabled people should be forced to wear blue wheelchair-shaped patches emblazoned on their chests? Certainly not, but the easier it is for those selfish and dishonest individuals to be able to manipulate the system, the more it undermines the needs of those that do require assistance and those whose lives can truly be improved by having a service animal.