Assist Dog on the AT

[Alligator]

The permits are issued to people. The dog is not a person nor a pet even. You can't require the owner to have for an architectural issue. Now, the AB was passed in 1968 and many of the shelters renovated. If there is not enough space to accommodate a person with a disability they would probably need to fix it. The NPS should have taken the law into account at renovation. I'm not suggesting they haven't. They have camping shelter rules but specific sleeping space requirements I don't know. Like do they have to offer a larger space. What magic formula is used for deciding shelter capacity in the first place I don't know. If it was a problem they could just reduce it to 7.

[The Weasel]

I will note, however, as to GSMNP, "reasonable accommodation" for the handicapped can allow for alternatives that are "as good" as a shelter. That MIGHT include, in some cases, permission to camp by a shelter for a disabled person and their dog/wheelchair/oxy/prostheses. But even then, since shelters provide more protection from weather, and even to have fires inside, as I recall, that might not be sufficient.

TW

[Alligator]

I am specifically addressing this in regard service animals just to note, this is part of an ABA amendment.

[HooKooDooKu]

This would be illegal under the Architectural Barrier Act. You cannot require a person with a disability to comply with a requirement that does not apply to a person without one. (This applies to the architectural issues.)

Max Patch is making a valid point.

Shelters in the GSMNP have a fixed number of sleeping spots. The GSMNP utilizes permits to track the number of people staying at shelters.

Max Patch doesn't seem to be suggesting anything that would be illegal, because he's not suggesting the disabled person has to comply with something a non-disabled person has to (because everyone has to have a permit). He is simply pointing out that the park service be informed that an additional space in the shelter is going to be utilized by the presence of the service animal. Now he did use the word "permit", but that's just because the permit system is how the GSMNP tracks the number of people staying at shelters (because he even suggested such a 'permit' would be at no cost).

In other words, Max Patch is just saying that you need to let the park service know you're going to be occupying two spots, not just one. That way, they can adjust the reservation system to make sure they don't issue a permit to someone that would need the animals spot.

Of course the question becomes mute if the service animal is sleeping somewhere other than one of the limited spots.
An yes, I know there are 'different' rules for thru-hikers. But the point is still valid because the way the park service deals with thru-hikers is to allocate 3 (I think) spots (and allows any thru-hikers above 3 to tent around the shelter is the shelter is otherwise full). So the point about telling the park service that an extra spot is required is a little more important when obtaining a general permit rather than a thru permit.

[max patch]

I'd love it if you'd respond to my questions, too.

I hope I have not come across as argumentative as that is not my intent. I am trying to understand something of which I have little knowledge about.

Some of my points which you have taken exception to seemed to me to be beneficial to the service animal community. Re the GSMNP shelters, a permit for the hiker and a permit for the dog would ensure that there is adequate space for the dog. An 8 person shelter would have 7 people and 1 dog. 8 spaces, 8 permits. There would be no question about the dog being allowed in the shelter. Assume its a rainy day. No one wants to sleep next to a wet dog in a shelter. (I believe you even made that argument in earlier times). With a permit, the dog would have his own space, and Ricky Redneck couldn't say a word about it in protest. Re the documentation requirement. I don't know how many people cheat to get their pet into a store. I've read articles that claim this is a problem. Did you read about the pet that peed on the expensive rug? If documentation was required that dog would not have gotten into the store. And if you ever attempt to enter that same store with your service dog your job has just gotten harder because of what happened earlier.

I'm trying to understand the law not change it so I have no reason to contact my congressman. Except perhaps to throw support for picture ID when voting which is a helluva good idea.

I certainly do not want to create a "documentation bureaucracy." IF cheating is a problem (you say it isn't, others say it is) then something along the lines of getting the handicapped parking cards would suffice.

[The Weasel]

Max:

Your idea of requiring the handicapped to get 2 spaces is just bad, and will prevent the handicapped with dogs from accessing the shelters (other than thru hikers, of course, who are guaranteed shelter space - or tent space if the shelter is full - when transiting the Park), since if there's only one space left and a handicapper with a dog wants it, you'd deny her/him the single space. As for wet dogs, yeah, it's not fun. But neither is anyone else, and it's a whole lot better than denying the handicapped access. Sorry. As for parking cards? Don't make me laugh. It's proven - not just anecdotally - that up to 50% of the people with them aren't handicapped. Sorry. You want to come up with more ways to make it harder for the handicapped to use something that you can access easily; there's not much you need to understand other than that federal and state laws say those ways are illegal.

And that's why this is all an unnecessary discussion, even for those who think they can come up with reasons why it's a bad idea: It's the law. I think a 55 mph speed limit is stupid and unworkable and a lot of other things, but it's the law. Like it or lump it. End of discussion; nothing to understand other than "violate the ADA and a hungry lawyer will sue your butt, win, and be granted attorneys' fees against you as well."

TW



TW

[The Weasel]

Max Patch is making a valid point.

Shelters in the GSMNP have a fixed number of sleeping spots. The GSMNP utilizes permits to track the number of people staying at shelters.

Max Patch doesn't seem to be suggesting anything that would be illegal, because he's not suggesting the disabled person has to comply with something a non-disabled person has to (because everyone has to have a permit). He is simply pointing out that the park service be informed that an additional space in the shelter is going to be utilized by the presence of the service animal. Now he did use the word "permit", but that's just because the permit system is how the GSMNP tracks the number of people staying at shelters (because he even suggested such a 'permit' would be at no cost).

In other words, Max Patch is just saying that you need to let the park service know you're going to be occupying two spots, not just one. That way, they can adjust the reservation system to make sure they don't issue a permit to someone that would need the animals spot.

Of course the question becomes mute if the service animal is sleeping somewhere other than one of the limited spots.
An yes, I know there are 'different' rules for thru-hikers. But the point is still valid because the way the park service deals with thru-hikers is to allocate 3 (I think) spots (and allows any thru-hikers above 3 to tent around the shelter is the shelter is otherwise full). So the point about telling the park service that an extra spot is required is a little more important when obtaining a general permit rather than a thru permit.

As Alligator said, imposing a greater burden on the handicapped than on the general public flunks the test. It's illegal. Max is saying, "Let's come up with a rule that is illegal." Sorry. Won't work. And the United States Attorney for the Central District of Virginia ain't gonna defend that one; she or he will just throw in the towel. If it got that far. Which it wouldn't. Sorry that you want to discriminate against the handicapped, which is what you're proposing. But that's illegal too.

TW

[Alligator]

HooKooDooKu, I don't if the answer I'm going to propose will answer the intent of the law but I will give it a try. The law says you cannot require it. Why? Requiring it forces the person with the disability to be treated differently and in a more negative fashion. That portion of the law is part of a rule about surcharges. You can't surcharge the accommodation due to the service animal if you don't place the surcharge on a person without a pet. I did not state this as clearly as I should have earlier I corrected it. I think predominantly about charging extra $, and then nuanced to include avoiding other rules. This is just one easy instance where it easily fixes. Change it, and you create additional burdens on a person with a disability because of the disability. Change disability to old or Asian or woman and you start to see the civil rights aspect. The intent of a specific law can be tricky though, I don't if my thoughts on it are in the ballpark or not.

[rickb]

parking cards? Don't make me laugh. It's proven - not just anecdotally - that up to 50% of the people with them aren't handicapped.
TW

Yup, people learn to game the system. Wasn't that part of what M. Patch was asking about?

The reality of things now is that a Businessman would be nuts to ever question anyone's assertion that an animal is a Service Animal. For that matter so would most public safety officers. Doesn't matter the circumstances .

As for a wet service dog in the main area of a crowded shelter, my guess is that would be as legal as me field stripping a Colt 1911 at the picnic table out front - and about as welcome. Just because we have rights -- granted by the constitution or by statue-- does not mean we need to exercise them all the time. Even if we can.

[elmotoots]

I have a disability, but do not need an Assist Dog.

If I needed an assist Dog and was going to hike with it, one of my concerns would be if I ran into some one who is dealing with Cynophobia. (spelling?)

Which is I believe the name given for people who suffer from the very real Anxiety Disorder fear of dogs.

I do not suffer from it, but have two grandkids who I hope are recovering from it. Both of them attacked by the same dog at once.

Their fear of dogs is crippling them. They try to act tough about it, but cannot hide the fear.

Big dog, little dog, even their own pet, scares them. One of them has even developed a nervous head jerk the experts are thinking is related to the attack. He has had brain scans and they find no physical problems.

Until this happened to them, I never gave this problem much thought.

I would watch people very closely and if I noticed someone showing signs of the disorder, I would try to stay far away from them. I might even change my plans and find another place to stay.

It is a very real disability for some and should be considered, not overlooked by us dog lovers.

[max patch]

So Hiker A has a legal right to a service dog. And Hiker B has a legal right to avoid dogs. And they both show up at the same shelter in the GSMNP.

My head is spinning.

[rickb]

So Hiker A has a legal right to a service dog. And Hiker B has a legal right to avoid dogs. And they both show up at the same shelter in the GSMNP.My head is spinning.

Max,Hiker B does not have a legal right to avoid dogs. At least not on the situation you cite.Perhaps in a swimming pool or hot tub.

[max patch]

Max,Hiker B does not have a legal right to avoid dogs. At least not on the situation you cite.Perhaps in a swimming pool or hot tub.

Thanks. I was really getting dizzy.

[HooKooDooKu]

Max:
Your idea of requiring the handicapped to get 2 spaces is just bad, and will prevent the handicapped with dogs from accessing the shelters ... if there's only one space left and a handicapper with a dog wants it...

Let's follow this to it's logical conclusion...

Let's say that there is a shelter with a capacity of 12 people, and 11 spaces are already full. You get a permit for the 12th spot. You arrive at the shelter, and the 11 other permit holders are already there. What are you going to do?

1. Try to force one of the other guests out of the shelter to make room for your dog?
Well that's going to go over like a lead balloon.

2. The 12 people and the dog simply squeeze together a little tighter?
The "bunks" consist of a monolithic platforms, with each of the 12 spots separated by a 1x2s. So it's impossible to adjust the amount of room allocated for each permit holder.

3. The dog sleeps on the floor in front of the bunks?
If the dog isn't going to occupy one of the 12 spots, then we don't need a discussion about getting the dog a permit.

[Alligator]

Let's follow this to it's logical conclusion...

Let's say that there is a shelter with a capacity of 12 people, and 11 spaces are already full. You get a permit for the 12th spot. You arrive at the shelter, and the 11 other permit holders are already there. What are you going to do?

1. Try to force one of the other guests out of the shelter to make room for your dog?
Well that's going to go over like a lead balloon.

2. The 12 people and the dog simply squeeze together a little tighter?
The "bunks" consist of a monolithic platforms, with each of the 12 spots separated by a 1x2s. So it's impossible to adjust the amount of room allocated for each permit holder.

3. The dog sleeps on the floor in front of the bunks?
If the dog isn't going to occupy one of the 12 spots, then we don't need a discussion about getting the dog a permit.

It doesn't have to follow through this way. The way Max asked the question, was that he was requiring another permit for the dog from the owner. They could place a question on the permit that asks, "Are you traveling with a service dog, yes or no." Then everybody has to answer. The central database could then allocate the extra space. In order to avoid not being able to allocate the last space to a person with a disability, the second to last space gets a caveat. You are reserving an accessible space. If a person with a disability reserves the last space, you will required to either forfeit your reservation or camp outside the shelter. Notify by email up 24 hours before. The second to last person would be getting a spot that technically should not be there but it is a "fluid" reservation. This is done similarly on recreation.gov for accessible campsites. Or you could make the third thruhiker responsible to move but it would probably be best to have the known permit holder stipulated to move to avoid problems.

Alternatively, just reduce the number of shelter spaces by one permanently as I mentioned earlier.

[Hill Ape]

group hug folks, work it out

[mjaynes288]

I can say without a doubt that the service dog community is fed up with fakers. They make access harder for actual teams. They flash meaningless official looking IDs they bought online making people think all teams should show them IDs. Their dogs do not behave. A store is much more likely to object to a service dog after a faker let their dog sniff and lick merchandise or left a pile of poo on the floor. Here is an article on fake IDs at the bottom is a list of links on the faker problem http://servicedogcentral.org/content...og-credentials

Most of the service dog community also has no problem with service dog permits for access to back country in national parks. National parks are not covered under the ADA. The memo previously posted brings the Department of the Interior definition of a service dog into line with the DOJ definition (service dogs for disabilities other than blindness and deafness). It had no other effect on DOI policy. It comes down to what the park thinks is a reasonable accommodation. Some parks feel it is reasonable service dog partners notify them they will be in the back country so park rangers do not have to hike miles to find out if the dog is a service dog. Here is a well written article on the issue: http://servicedogcentral.org/content/national-parks

[Alligator]

I did get a response back from the AG's office.

Pets are not allowed in Baxter State Park. Service animals are allowed. However, dogs are unable to climb Katahdin without assistance so people do not usually bring even service dogs. Please feel free to contact the Park directly to discuss your specific situation, 207-723-5140, 64 Balsam Drive, Millinocket, Maine 04462. Thank you,




Janet T. Mills
Attorney General





Rosemarie Smith


Executive Secretary to the Attorney General


Office of the Attorney General


6 State House Station


Augusta, ME 04333

I did not climb Katahdin with an eye on the trail for tricky dog passage points. There are two spots that having a second human's help is very helpful, at least one if not both had an iron rung. The boulder climb at the base of the Tableland is also challenging.

[Marta]

I can say without a doubt that the service dog community is fed up with fakers. They make access harder for actual teams. They flash meaningless official looking IDs they bought online making people think all teams should show them IDs. Their dogs do not behave. A store is much more likely to object to a service dog after a faker let their dog sniff and lick merchandise or left a pile of poo on the floor. Here is an article on fake IDs at the bottom is a list of links on the faker problem http://servicedogcentral.org/content...og-credentials

Most of the service dog community also has no problem with service dog permits for access to back country in national parks. National parks are not covered under the ADA. The memo previously posted brings the Department of the Interior definition of a service dog into line with the DOJ definition (service dogs for disabilities other than blindness and deafness). It had no other effect on DOI policy. It comes down to what the park thinks is a reasonable accommodation. Some parks feel it is reasonable service dog partners notify them they will be in the back country so park rangers do not have to hike miles to find out if the dog is a service dog. Here is a well written article on the issue: http://servicedogcentral.org/content/national-parks

On Friday I was snowshoeing in Glacier NP in an area where pets are prohibited. A young couple on backcountry skis had a dog with them. The dog was wearing a pack that said "Service Animal" on it. The dog was not leashed and was obviously not working--he was running after birds, came up to me and sniffed me a couple of times, and so on.

[Dirty Nails]

Weasel, if you have a legitimate disability you know it. If you have a legitimate, trained service dog, you know that too. You then also know the rights and limitations of using your service dog.
My service dog accompanied me through Shenandoah, Bear Mtn zoo, and Baxter as well.

Many folks seem to do all but answer your original question, so I'll try. (I didn't have the stomach to read all the posts)
In my experience there are some places where it's tough on the dog. You will have to help lift the dog up and down some ledges and a few ladders. The first one that comes to mind is Dragon's Tooth, which I believe you will encounter. I found a dog up there either lost or abandoned. It was too rugged for me to try to bring him down. You must consider how heavy your dog is to lift, and use a pack with sturdy harness.
Also, as with any training, you must ensure the dog is reliable in all environments, especially the woods. There are so many distractions in the woods, that maintaining "work mode" all day (very long days) is extremely challenging and taxing for the service dog. My dog had good days and some not so good days. We just did sections, and went slow. I found 1-2 weeks was more than my dog enjoyed.
This is in addition to all the regular concerns of hiking w/dog. You can read about all those concerns on this forum until you puke.
Good luck!