There have been some pretty intense exchanges over the “Sonoma Pets” story on the definition of a service dog. The story had to do with getting a service dog tag from Sonoma County Animal Care and Control and what some consider to be a lack of oversight for the program.
What has been the most striking part of the debate is the insistence by some posters that if there is going to be a service dog, then it ought to be easily identified. I don’t know what that means, unless all service dogs “look” a certain way.
The flip side is people complaining that if the service dog isn’t easily identifiable, then by golly, the disability for which it is in service for, ought to be.
Visible disability and visible service dog. As if having a disability isn’t a challenge enough, public display is demanded to make others feel comfortable.
Another poster noted the issue is larger than service dog access but this country’s attitude toward pets in public in general. One poster, who had lived in France, noted that it is not at all unusual to see dogs in restaurants there, and it’s usually the owner of the restaurant ready with dog treats.
One experience I remember is riding the high-speed rail (TGV) from Paris to Lyon. In the chair next to me was a beagle, sound asleep, while his owner calmly read the paper. No body was making a fuss. Nobody was complaining about the smell. Nobody was complaining period. Nobody was demanding to see his service dog tag.
Yes, there are some people who fail to do their homework and do not train their dogs appropriately. But that, I suspect is pretty rare. But as with most things, the rarity somehow makes it an example of why all should be banned.
I’d like to think there is a middle ground. It’s called tolerance.
