About the recent hiker & dog pics on Baxter Peak:

[TJ aka Teej]

I want to clear something up regarding recent (late June 2017) social media posts and photos of a hiker and her dog on Baxter Peak.
Only service dogs are allowed in the Park, There is no "interview process," no "applying", no "special exception," no "legitimate reason."
Either the dog is a service animal, or not. Pets are not allowed.

[rickb]

Wanderwoman_superpup on Instagram?

Not sure how the rangers could have missed her.

She a thru hiker?

[Another Kevin]

I want to clear something up regarding recent (late June 2017) social media posts and photos of a hiker and her dog on Baxter Peak.
Only service dogs are allowed in the Park, There is no "interview process," no "applying", no "special exception," no "legitimate reason."
Either the dog is a service animal, or not. Pets are not allowed.

And under the current state of the law, there's no way that a service animal is qualified or credentialed. Officials cannot demand the papers for a service animal, but by the same token patients have no papers to present for the animal. This avoids obvious potential abuses where people with invisible disabilities are stigmatized, but also opens the door to cases where people present pets as service animals.

There are no really good answers. We don't want to make those who are genuinely disabled continually have to prove their 'deserving' status, and we don't want to allow fraudulent service animals. The 'in between' solutions simply open the door to abuse from both ends of the spectrum.

My understanding of the current state of affairs is that officials MAY ask:

1. Is this a service animal?
2. What services is the animal trained to perform?

They may NOT ask:

1. For any sort of special identification for the animal.
2. For information about the handler's specific disability.

They may NOT:

1. Charge additional fees for the presence of the animal.
2. Refuse admittance to the handler.
3. Segregate, isolate, or treat the handler less favourably than other patrons.

They may NOT demand to remove the animal unless:

1. the animal is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it., or
2. the animal poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others.

These Federal rules override local health and safety codes for food service establishments - a restaurant cannot exclude a patron based on a local health code that bans animals.

Discrimination against the disabled is at least as big a problem as service animal fraud, and as I said, there are no good answers that don't involve harassment or active discrimination against disabled persons.

[rickb]

I believe superpup is a certified support animal.


IMG_4306.jpg

[BobTheBuilder]

This link discusses the bill I mentioned above and has a cute puppy training to be a service dog:

http://www.wusa9.com/life/animals/se...-law/452546965

[SawnieRobertson]

I believe superpup is a certified support animal.


IMG_4306.jpg

Echoing Rick B's information regarding service animals, he is right. There is no legitimate certification; however, because there is so much suspicion, I do carry my prescriptions from 3 different MDs. Still, no one has a right to ask for my medical records, which the scripts are. Push further, and I (as well as others) will take legal action against the jerk (or jerkette). No quarter.

[SawnieRobertson]

My service dog, Fleur, died with little warning August 12, 2015. To replace her through an SD training facility was/is beyond my financial capability. I had trained Fleur myself for that reason as well as the almost impossible task of training a dog (could be a mini horse) to help prevent or assuage a psychiatric problem (panic disorder) for another person. Fleur did great, attending lectures, concerts, plays, dinners at restaurants, visiting homes, buying groceries, sitting at my feet on airlines,listening at church, etc. HOWEVER, had she not behaved properly, I would have been expected quietly to persuade her to behave. If that did not work, then I would be required to remove her from that scene. THEN, if she had settled down, we could both return. That is the law, and it is a good one. In your mind, think of a young child in that situation. To further attempt to put a light on this subject, only California and Colorado have a law granting Service Dog in Training privilege under the theory that the dog needs to have real experiences to back up their training. Most dogs learn that way more quickly. I am now eagerly awaiting my new dog's birthday in 4 months when she will have gained the maturity of being that magic age of 2 years old. In choosing her at 9 weeks old, I was grateful for the wisdom of her breeder who herself must have a psychiatric animal. When you encounter us somewhere, please do us the favor of not seeking her eye contact or in any other way distracting her. Even though I have no wheelchair (yet) nor a white cane, she is working. Just talk to me. We can even converse about her and the program and whether or how you can get a service dog for your grandchild. Just don't direct your speech towards her. Thanks.

[BobTheBuilder]

I don't know this young woman or her dog, and I am not questioning the validity of her service dog in any way.

However, since most people who clicked on this post have some interest in the matter, I would like to take this opportunity to note that it takes about two years of intensive training to develop a service dog, and many are now being effectively used as support animals for returning military members suffering from TBI or PTSD. There is a bill in congress right now to secure additional funding to train service dogs for veterans. It's a big deal, and these dogs are working miracles.

At the same time, the number of people who buy fake service dog paperwork online is skyrocketing, and every dog who is misrepresented as a service dog creates huge trust and acceptance problems for the dogs that are truly trained for the purpose.

The point of all of this is simple - if you're a future thru hiker reading this who thinks they have found a clever way to bring your dog on a hike and force restaurants, national parks, and grocery stores to let you bring your dog in, PLEASE do not misrepresent your dog as something it is not. It is an insult to all of the people who spend their lives training these dogs, and to all of the worthy veterans who need them.

[Shae]

I want to clear something up regarding recent (late June 2017) social media posts and photos of a hiker and her dog on Baxter Peak.
Only service dogs are allowed in the Park, There is no "interview process," no "applying", no "special exception," no "legitimate reason."
Either the dog is a service animal, or not. Pets are not allowed.

Her name is Alton Dadekian. A friend of a friend of my daughter. On her website she claims that the dog is a "certified therapy and emotional support animal". http://wanderwomansuperpup.com/ On her facebook page https://www.facebook.com/alton.eckel with the Baxter Peak photo a couple of people asked how they let her dog in. She answered " Tenacity and a legitimate reason" It seems many of her posts are kind of "gimmicky" with her and the dog dressed up in some rather unique outfits. A lot of nice photography but .... I have to admit that I've wondered what her story is for awhile now.

[capehiker]

It seems many of her posts are kind of "gimmicky" with her and the dog dressed up in some rather unique outfits. A lot of nice photography but .... I have to admit that I've wondered what her story is for awhile now.

Im glad I'm not the only one who thought so. She's branding herself to be this saccharine sweet outdoors girl with a perfect life. From poking around, it appears to me the dog is a trained therapy dog but not necessarily her therapy dog.

[gracebowen]

Please and those lol. Stupid typos.

[tdoczi]

Please and those lol. Stupid typos.

i dont doubt it, but look at the quandry it creates.

basically anyone who claims they need to bring their animal with them somewhere for some reason, you have to allow them to and not question why they feel it is necessary.

it is, in a de facto way, a system in which an animal is allowed to go anywhere it's owner deems is necessary. if we feel the good of not depriving those who need them of their emotional support animals, well then the unavoidable abuse is the price we pay for it.

on the other hand, we can decide that the ramifications of allowing this are not worth it and that the handful of people who truly need it are going to have to deal with it for the good of all the other people and places who would be impacted.

the notion that somehow we are only going to have those with truly legit need make use of the leniency afforded ESAs and that abuse will not be rampant is fantasy land stuff.

itd be more to the point and straightforward and honest to say this- "please do not bring your pet here as it will negatively impact the place and the other people here to enjoy it." while conceding that pets are, in fact, allowed.

that is in essence what is in place now. we have an unenforceable "rule" prohibiting something, but its nothing but an honor system. we are, in effect, requesting that people not bring their pets and trusting them to not do so, while totally helpless to prevent them. i suppose we're hoping not many people get wise to this, but that wont last long.

[tdoczi]

my unsolicited 2 cents- "emotional support dog" basically is so open ended it makes basically every dog on the planet (that is specifically trained to do something else, like bomb sniffing or something) an emotional support animal. i own a dog. he isnt trained to perform any specific task, he has no skill. why do i have him then? for companionship, amusement, enjoyment.... these things are emotional support.

if youre going to allow that dogs who provide emotional support are service animals and therefore allowed special privilege, well, then just make it that dogs have to be allowed anywhere there owner deems it necessary to take them and get on with it.

[tdoczi]

correction- that is NOT specifically trained...

[TJ aka Teej]

No 'interview process', no 'tenacity', no 'applying' for 'special exception,' needed for service dogs to enter Baxter.
Service dogs are allowed. Pets are not.

[rickb]

No 'interview process', no 'tenacity', no 'applying' for 'special exception,' needed for service dogs to enter Baxter.
Service dogs are allowed. Pets are not.

Is a Support Dog the same as a Service Dog, in the eyes of BSP policy?

My other question is whether or not BSP would allow a certified therapy and emotional support dog if the dog was being accompanied by its handler -- like a trained therapist -- rather than an individual it was assigned to comfort.

[Sandy of PA]

And in 2014 "Mayor" brought his pet into Baxter for his summit and brags about it in his book and on Youtube. It is people like this that need to be schooled, and fined.

[tdoczi]

And in 2014 "Mayor" brought his pet into Baxter for his summit and brags about it in his book and on Youtube. It is people like this that need to be schooled, and fined.

i suppose this idea isnt limited to thru hikers at all, but the sot of thing you describe, is in my experience, common amongst them. they will willfully violate the rules and then flout it. its because in their heads the rules either shouldnt exist at all or shouldnt apply to them.

a thru at a shelter a couple years ago in maine was pontificating at length about how he was having a drink on top of katahdin no matter what because you see this is HIS hike, not theirs and therefore they have no business telling him what he cant do.

true story.

[TJ aka Teej]

And in 2014 "Mayor" brought his pet into Baxter for his summit and brags about it in his book and on Youtube. It is people like this that need to be schooled, and fined.

The thing about Mayor is he admits sneaking his dog in, and didn't care at all if his action harmed wildlife or the future of ATers in Baxter. No one could confuse his actions with getting some kind of special permission.

The thing about the recent postings is people are being confused. I've been contacted by several hikers, mostly asking how to get the same special exception, one calling my published info wrong, and one claiming I was shilling for the overpriced ripoff kennels in Millinocket. I can only imagine the calls BSPHQ is getting.

Just to be clear: Service dogs are allowed. Pets are not. There is no special exception pet owners can apply for.

[KDogg]

There are many people that are using emotional support animals to circumvent legitimate laws protecting the rights of disabled persons. There are many 'organizations' online that only require a short questionnaire and a fee to get issued a 'permit'. The whole reason this scam works is that, as stated above, you aren't permitted to ask a person with an 'ESA' animal relevant questions about the animal or themselves and no proof of any of this required. I don't know the person mentioned in the article but there certainly is a lot of tiptoeing around this issue and I have no doubt that most of the ESA animals out there are completely illegitimate. This needs to be addressed by federal, state and local governments. ESA animals are not service animals and require no special training. Does this seem right to everybody? I'm not saying that there isn't a need out there but, as of now, there is no rules governing ESA which essentially means that you can take your pet with you anywhere you want to go and you must be accommodated.