LOCKING JAWS? IMPOSSIBLE

skull.jpg

The diagram above shows the correct skull structure, jaw alignment, and dentition for mesocephalic breeds of dogs. Mesocephalic refers to those breeds whose length of muzzle approximates the length of the top skull. These breeds when correctly structured have a scissors bite, with the top teeth meeting tightly in front of the bottom teeth.

Most of the breeds of dogs lumped under the ubiquitous heading of “pit bull” are mesocephalic, but some are not.

There is no supernatural structure to these breed’s skull, jaw, or teeth. That any dog is capable of locking its jaw is a myth.

Sound, correct dogs have 42 teeth after the seven month molars erupt. Dogs may exhibit malocclusions, or genetically missing teeth, usually pre-molars.

There are two more types of skull that are displayed in dogs. The brachycephalic which is the very short faced seen in breeds such as the Bulldog, Pug, Boston terrier, Pekingese, American Bulldog, etc. These breeds are predisposed to malocclusions, and to missing teeth due to crowding. These breeds are prognathous jawed, with the lower teeth protruding in front of the top teeth.

The dolichocephalic type of skull is long, and narrow, the muzzle is longer than the top skull. It is common in breeds such as the Borzoi, the Bull Terrier, and the Collie. The long narrow jaws appear to be able to hold more teeth, but these breeds also have 42 teeth.

These are the facts about dog skull configuration.

Leave a comment

Filed under Dogs, fact, science

THE GUARDIAN CONSPIRACY by Captain A. Haggerty

The lawyers are salivating like Pavlov’s dogs at the prospect of changing the terminology from “dog owner” to “dog guardian”. California is the pacesetter for silly laws. For example, they are purging all the school texts of references to low-nutritional value foods. No longer will the offensive, “Suzie has three lollypops and Mary has—”, appear in California textbooks. Progress is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, the silly law brigade is out in force in California and as California goes so goes the nation. What difference does it make? The fall-out, should this law pass in Los Angeles, is enormous and loaded with far reaching costs to the taxpayer. Animal Rights people and lawyers seem to be in favor of the law and that worries me.

It appears to be a conspiracy but who started it? Ah, a good question. All conspiracies are secret and the more people involved the greater the chance of discovery. Following the money may give you the answer. The more laws, particularly confusing, challenging and contradictory laws the more work for the legal eagles. Now bearing in mind what the Bard said, in a un-Bard-like quote, “The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers.” uttered by one of Shakespeare’s more obscure characters, Dick the butcher in Henry the Sixth, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 4. Everyone knows the quote but don’t know where to find it with the exception of the erudite DOG NEWS reader.

The president of American University in Washington, DC sponsored a moot trial in 1987. Fans of Edward de Vere, the 17th Lord of Oxford (1550-1604), one of the pretenders to the works of William Shakespeare, called on the court to determine was it de Vere or Shakespeare that was the author of works attributed to the Bard. There were some heavy hitters deciding the case: Three Supreme Court Justices. The above quote was tossed into the pot and the Justices attributed it and everything else to Shakespeare.

Follow the money is a good rule of thumb to help determine in whose interested in something. I come from a family of lawyers so I do not want my family to disown me. Lawyers have an interest in the newly emerging specialty in law. Animal law is appearing in more and more law schools. Currently there are over 25 law schools offering such courses, including Harvard Law School. A big plus from the lawyer’s point of view is that is hard for animals to initiate malpractice suits should they feel they have not been properly served. Do not forget it isn’t even necessary to return phone calls to their “clients”. One big Bar Association complaint on lawyers is a failure to return phone calls. The dogs won’t complain. This sounds like a win-win situation for the lawyers.

So let’s follow the money. Who is going to pay the lawyers? Don’t worry about the lawyers getting their money. They have it covered. They know how to get their hands on the money. Worst-case scenario from the indigent dog’s point of view is your tax dollar will pay the legal bills. Who else stands to make money? Animal Rights groups have a number of interesting similar characteristics. First, realize that their primary function is raising money. Free publicity is an excellent low-cost way of raising funds. The more bizarre the publicity the more press. Another characteristic of AR groups is that they keep no animals under their roofs. Do you know how much easier that makes their lives? Start thinking about how much easier your life would be if you owned no dogs. No kennels, no shelters and no animals to administer. Yes, the ARs are built for speed, ease and a high profit margin. They are money-making machines. ARs are not Animal Welfare groups. They are AR welfare groups.

What difference do these emerging laws make? Animal rights groups hope the masses will take the “what difference does it make” attitude. Note that some animal welfare groups are drifting into the animal rights mold. Some of the welfare groups see the money made and want to follow it all the way to the bank. When I asked one animal rights person their reason for this silliness he said it was to get people to think the “right” way about animals. I replied that was not the purpose of laws. Who says we have to all think your way about dogs? I own my dogs and seek no release from the responsibilities that entails.

Here’s a scenario. You have had a dog since it was two months old and he is a wonderful pup. “Gunner” is approaching a year of age and he is the best dog you have ever had. You spent big bucks buying him. You recognize it is the best money you have ever spent. You not only have had Gunner micro-chipped but tattooed and DNAed. You covered all bases.

There is a problem. Some one we’ll call R. B., to protect the guilty saw the dog and became quite enthralled with Gunner’s wonderful appearance. He steals your dog and changes his name to Jupiter. R. B. and the newly named Jupiter have become quite close during the two years you been frantically searching for him.

A friend has spotted Gunner and she checked the tattoo. She gave you the tattoo number Bingo! You have a home run! You go to the police with your AKC registration, bill of sale, tattoo number, DNA paperwork, photos, vet health records and microchip records. You also have the police department case number when you reported the theft of Gunner. Boy, do you have your act together! You say you want to press charges against R. B. for “criminally receiving stolen goods”. You were told that it might be hard to prove who stole Gunner but criminally receiving was an open and shut case.

You proved beyond any doubt that you own Gunner to the police. The police called R. B. in for an interview and when they asked if he owned the dog, he said no. On further interrogation R. B. said he had a dog named Jupiter but didn’t own him. R. B. explained he is the dog’s guardian. How could J. B. be guilty of criminally receiving something that people aren’t even permitted to own? He was the guardian for Jupiter and knew nothing and cared less about a dog named Gunner.

The police call you up and explain there is nothing they can do. It is a custody battle, not a criminal matter. Now to add insult to injury you now have to retain a lawyer——a family practice lawyer with heavy experience in custody battles.

The day you are to appear in court the judge decides she will show she has the Wisdom of Solomon. No, not draw the dog. She will have the bailiff hold the dog in the middle of the courtroom. Gunner hasn’t seen you in two years while Jupiter spent the night with R. B. You both are instructed when re-entering the courtroom to wait until told by the judge to call the dog. Hey, that doesn’t sound fair to you. You know what you will do. You’ll squat down when you call him. If this were a movie, the music would well up as the suspense mounts. The judge gives the signal and you squat down and holler, “GUNNER!” R. B. follows your lead and squats down as he hollers. “JUPITER!” The dog trots over, tail wagging to R. B. Your heart sinks. Perhaps you should have used Gunner’s new name. As R. B. passes you, leaving the court with Jupiter at his side, he whispers a two-word epithet at you. Unfair? Unjust? Sure but who said life was fair?

Don’t say, “What difference does it make?” Every week one hears of ridiculous court rulings. This warm and fuzzy word, guardian opens the door to a myriad of legal entanglements not even considered at this point. Wait until you see what pops out of this Pandora’s Box of legal problems.

The state can’t event take care of the animals they are currently supposed to and now they want to make all domestic animals wards of the state. Realize that a politician’s reflex action to any problem is to pass more laws. They don’t want to enforce laws currently on the books. That would solve the problem. It is better to pass new unenforceable laws.

What are some of the problems changing the term from owner to guardian will produce? Has anyone given thought as to how to enforce laws against non-owners? Currently dogs are property and we are told that is not right because that makes them no more than the equivalent of a pair of skis or a tire iron. What are the laws against tire iron abuse? Dogs have even more rights and fewer responsibilities than we do at the present time. It is impossible to tell the fall-out of such a change until the lawsuits settle some time in the middle of this century. Are you willing to take a chance on this crapshoot?

There are a couple of lawyers in San Francisco that wish they were the guardians of the two dogs that killed Diane Whipple. They wouldn’t be in jail today.

Of course Lassie, Arnold the Pig and Morris the Cat will have court appointed attorneys to pursue their suit against the discriminatory Screen Actor’s Guild for denying their civil rights. Hey, they want to join the union.

If a veterinarian makes a fatal mistake all he needs to pay is the replacement value of the animal. What about future earnings? Loss of love and companionship? Vet insurance bills will skyrocket equal to the MDs and each one of us will pay for it. Remember that the taxpayers would pay the court appointed attorney.

What do you think about the involuntary sterilization of human beings? That should be a super big lawsuit. How many dogs have undergone involuntary sterilization? This will be the end of dog sterilization. Oh, the lawyers will be kept busy.

Animal law is a growth industry.

Let’s look at the good side of this. As a dog ages the veterinarian bills climb. At age 9 years and 104 days your dog should be eligible for Medicare or Medicaid. One year of a dog’s life is equal to seven years of a human’s. Don’t worry, someone will initiate that lawsuit.

Animal righters say they want to share their world with the animals. I can see one of them crawling into bed with a Duroc-Red Hog. They won’t have to undergo that indignity because they will be ridding the earth of all domestic animals.

I’m not worried about the animal righters. I’m worried about the lawyers.

(Originally published in Dog News)

Leave a comment

Filed under dog laws, Dogs, fact

L.A. to mandate pet sterilization

Carla Hall (see Los Angeles Times article link below) fails to include Bill Dyer’s comment regarding “Zero Pet Population.” Dyer is a Director with IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS. Could this be the true agenda? No pets? Why don’t we “fast track” Mr. Dyer’s goal, grab Fluffy & Fido and send them off to the Rainbow Bridge tonight!
Additionally, Ms. Hall has neglected to mention the incredibly rude and childish behavior of the supporters. In particular, when another member of Concerned Dog Owners of California was addressing the Council in opposition, a supporter shouted “YOU NEED TO BE SPAYED!” Now, that’s mature. It was a bit difficult to hear the opposing speakers above the constant chatter and laughter of Judie Mancuso’s well-orchestrated crew.
Councilmember Garcetti announced the names of many supporters in attendance that had signed speaker cards. Among them were Jane Garrison and her husband Mark Garrison. I do hope Rolf Wicklund a/k/a “Mr. Judie Mancuso” was there, too. You remember Social Compassion In Legislation, right?
Ed Boks informed that the “detractors represent a narrow group of vociferous breeders that don’t want to come into the light of day.” Gosh, I am no longer called “greedy.” Now, I am “vociferous.”
Boks also informed the Council and other attendees that the current state law REQUIRES spay/neuter at eight (8) weeks. “It is safe and in the best interest of the animal.” He continued by advising everyone that “The CVMA (California Veterinary Medical Association) supports the ordinance in addition to AVMA, AHA, ASPCA, and HSUS.” Must be a brain synapse. The CVMA pulled their support from California Assembly Bill 1634 regarding “mandatory” spay/neuter last summer. Oh, well. There is “information” and then there is “(mis)information.” No biggie.
Councilmember Alarcon returned to the podium to address the problem of “back door breeders” and shares a story about a St. Bernard that roams in his neighborhood eating out of everyone’s trash. Councilmember Reyes apprised everyone of a pit bull that ran into his yard and “they had to do whatever possible to open its jaws”. He also informs us that his “kids take a club to defend his dog from loose dogs.” Can anyone say LEASH LAW? Possibly the Los Angeles Police Department needs to do hourly cruises in the neighborhoods of Alarcon and Reyes.
Councilmember Cardenas informs one and all that the price of spay or neuter in the City of Los Angeles is $60-$80. Really? Cardenas continued by sharing the cost estimate to euthanize a cat or a dog at one of Ed Bok’s fine “sheltering” establishments. The cost is $145 – $195. Why does it cost so much to euthanize a dog or a cat in an LA shelter? Let’s see. Come in the front door. Go out the back door. Possibly the dog or cat is taking a detour from the front door to the back door via the Seven Wonders of the World and a few five-star hotels along the way?
Let’s not forget Cardenas’ remarks that a a cat or dog can produce 25,000 offspring in their lifetime!! Possibly more. Hey, now I’m paying attention. I’ll take a piece of this action. Just give me a minute to select the breed with the biggest bang for my buck and let’s get those 25,000 puppies rolling out the door.
Councilmember Zine informed everyone that “something disturbs me.” He continues by sharing that he wants no “wiggle room” somewhere before inquiring “Do we have a definition of a breeder?” He “doesn’t want to see the policy of spay/neuter so loose that people can escape!”
Yes, maturity was at an all-time high today in the “City of Angels.” Please feel free to circulate!
Brat Zinsmaster

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-spay2feb02,1,5148512.story

L.A. to mandate pet sterilization

Leave a comment

Filed under dog laws, microchipping

RDOWS POSITION STATEMENT ON MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER

RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES

P.O. Box 1406 Newport, WA 99156

Web Site http://www.povn.com/rdows E-mail rdows@povn.com

Blog http://rdows.wordpress.com E-mail List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rdows

RDOWS POSITION STATEMENT ON MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States was formed October 15, 1989 to protect the civil, and Constitutional rights, and interests of dog owners.

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States is opposed to any government mandated invasive, or non-invasive surgeries being performed upon privately owned domestic pets. Our opposition is based upon both practical, and upon constitutional reasons. There are health risks involved with any invasive, or non-invasive surgery. The least of which is risk of infection, and there is always the risk of any surgery being fatal.

Spaying/neutering has little or no affect upon a bitch or dog’s temperament, in fact the lack of normal hormones may cause mood swings, and unpredictable behavior, and exacerbate a poor temperament. (see attached study Behavioral Assessment of Child-Directed Canine Aggression)

Legal Standpoint: Such a mandate is a taking of personal property rights by a governmental body that has usurped ownership, and use rights in the animal from its rightful owner. The United States of America is not a communist collective in which all people, and their goods are properties of the government. RDOWS upholds the domestic animal owner’s right to choose whether or not to spay, or to neuter his, or her animal. . RDOWS stipulates that an animal’s internal, and external genetalia belong to the owner of the animal. RDOWS claims the rights of ownership for all domestic pet owners based upon tens of thousands of years of proven historical ownership, and of the ancient and honorable profession of animal husbandry.

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States sees such a mandate as an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, and a violation of the Bill of Rights;

Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, or the property to be seized

· A violation of Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

· Lastly. A violation of Amendment XIV, Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

References:

Salmeri KR, Bloomberg MS, Scruggs SL, Shille V.. Gonadectomy in immature dogs: effects on skeletal, physical, and behavioral development. JAVMA 1991;198:1193-1203

http://www.grca.org/healthsurvey.pdf

Grumbach MM. Estrogen, bone, growth and sex: a sea change in conventional wisdom. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2000;13 Suppl 6:1439-55.
Gilsanz V, Roe TF, Gibbens DT, Schulz EE, Carlson ME, Gonzalez O, Boechat MI. Effect of sex steroids on peak bone density of growing rabbits. Am J Physiol. 1988 Oct;255(4 Pt 1):E416-21.
Slauterbeck JR, Pankratz K, Xu KT, Bozeman SC, Hardy DM. Canine ovariohysterectomy and orchiectomy increases the prevalence of ACL injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec;(429):301-5.
Spain CV, Scarlett JM, Houpt KA. Long-term risks and benefits of early-age gonadectomy in dogs. JAVMA 2004;224:380-387.
Ware WA, Hopper DL. Cardiac tumors in dogs: 1982-1995. J Vet Intern Med 1999 Mar-Apr;13(2):95-103
Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters D, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Nov;11(11):1434-40
Ru G, Terracini B, Glickman LT. Host related risk factors for canine osteosarcoma. Vet J. 1998 Jul;156(1):31-9.
Obradovich J, Walshaw R, Goullaud E. The influence of castration on the development of prostatic carcinoma in the dog. 43 cases (1978-1985). J Vet Intern Med 1987 Oct-Dec;1(4):183-7

http://www.akcchf.org/pdfs/whitepapers/Biennial_National_Parent_Club_Canine_Health_Conference.pdf

Meuten DJ. Tumors in Domestic Animals. 4th Edn. Iowa State Press, Blackwell Publishing Company, Ames, Iowa, p. 575
Stocklin-Gautschi NM, Hassig M, Reichler IM, Hubler M, Arnold S. The relationship of urinary incontinence to early spaying in bitches. J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. 57:233-6, 2001
Pessina MA, Hoyt RF Jr, Goldstein I, Traish AM. Differential effects of estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone on vaginal structural integrity. Endocrinology. 2006 Jan;147(1):61-9.
Kim NN, Min K, Pessina MA, Munarriz R, Goldstein I, Traish AM. Effects of ovariectomy and steroid hormones on vaginal smooth muscle contractility. Int J Impot Res. 2004 Feb;16(1):43-50.
Aaron A, Eggleton K, Power C, Holt PE. Urethral sphincter mechanism incompetence in male dogs: a retrospective analysis of 54 cases. Vet Rec. 139:542-6, 1996
Panciera DL. Hypothyroidism in dogs: 66 cases (1987-1992). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 204:761-7 1994
Howe LM, Slater MR, Boothe HW, Hobson HP, Holcom JL, Spann AC. Long-term outcome of gonadectomy performed at an early age or traditional age in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 Jan 15;218(2):217-21. This article is available for download in Adobe Acrobat PDF format Early Spay Considerations (pdf).
ENDOGENOUS GONADAL HORMONE EXPOSURE AND BONE SARCOMA RISK

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/11/11/1434.pdf

Cherie Graves, Chairwoman, WA, (509) 447-2821

Judy Schreiber-Dwornick, Assistant to the Chair, Director at Large, rdowsdirectoratlarge@gmail.com

Hermine Stover, Secretary, Press Liaison, CA, hermine@endangeredspecies.com

Mary Schaeffer, Finance Director, finedogs@hotmail.com

Arizona Director, John Bowen johnalldogs@sprintmail.com

California Director, Jan Dykema bestuvall@sbcglobal.net

Illinois Director, Elizabeth Pensgard bpensgard@yahoo.com

Indiana Director, Charles Coffman candkcoffman@comcast.net

Iowa Director, Leisa Boysen rdows_iowa@yahoo.com

Mississippi Director, Dan Crutchfield farmer1@telepak.net

Nevada Director, Ken Sondej 4winds@viawest.net

Ohio Director, Tiffany Skotnicky ohdirrdows@yahoo.com

Oklahoma Director, Jade Harris aadrlegislation@yahoo.com

Tennessee Director, Gina Cotton ginacotton@msn.com

Texas Director, Alvin Crow crobx@austin.rr.com

Leave a comment

Filed under animal protection laws, dog laws, fact, science, Uncategorized

National Safety Council: Cause of death in 2003

Cause of death in 2003
Number of deaths per year
One-year odds
Lifetime odds

Captive non-human primate
0*
0
0

Captive bear
0.125**
1 in 2,416,000,000
1 in 32,000,000

Captive elephant
0.81**
378,000,000
5,000,000

Captive big/exotic cat
1**
302,000,000
4,000,000

Captive reptile
1.5***
201,000,000
2,700,000

Fireworks discharge
11
26,440,910
340,733

Contact with hot tap-water
26
11,186,539
144,156

Flood
26
11,186,539
144,156

Bitten or struck by dog
32
9,089,063
117,127

Earthquake and other earth movements
32
9,089,063
117,127

Struck by or against another person
39
7,457,692
96,104

Lightning
47
6,188,298
79,746

Contact with hornets, wasps and bees
66
4,406,818
56,789

Cataclysmic storm (****)
75
3,878,000
49,974

Animal rider or occupant of animal-drawn vehicle
101
2,879,703
37,110

Alcohol
373
779,759
10,048

Fall on and from ladder or scaffolding
417
697,482
8,988

Drowning and submersion while in or falling into swimming pool
515
564,757
7,278

Firearms discharge
730
398,425
5,134

Air and space transport accidents
742
391,981
5,051

Occupant of all-terrain or other off-road motor vehicle
906
321,026
4,137

Drowning and submersion while in or falling into natural water
1225
237,429
3,060

Fall on and from stairs and steps
1,588
183,155
2,360

Exposure to smoke, fire and flames
3,369
86,331
1,113

Motorcycle riding
3,676
79,121
1,020

Assault by firearm
11,920
24,400
314

Motor vehicle accidents
44,757
6,498
84

Source: National Safety Council, National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Census, animal attack news reports

*In 1997 in Atlanta, Georgia, one Yerkes primate researcher supposedly died of herpes B after she was splashed in the eye with bodily fluids from a rhesus macaque; this can NOT be classified as animal ‘attack’, just like a nurse or doctor being accidentally infected with a blood from an AIDS patients can not be called a murder.

** Based on 16 year average 1990-2006 numbers

*** Based on 11 year average 1995-2006 numbers

(****)Includes hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, dust storms and other cataclysmic storms.

Note: Exotic animal yearly and lifetime odds numbers were rounded due to their extremely large size for the ease of use and quoting purposes in the media and legislative sessions.

Leave a comment

Filed under Dogs, fact, science

COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT SERVICE ANIMALS

COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT SERVICE ANIMALS
IN PLACES OF BUSINESS

Q: What are the laws that apply to my business?

A: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), privately owned
businesses that serve the public, such as restaurants, hotels, retail
stores, taxicabs, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities, are
prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities.
The ADA requires these businesses to allow people with disabilities to
bring their service animals onto business premises in whatever areas
customers are generally allowed.

Q: What is a service animal?

A: The ADA 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 a state or local government.

Service animals perform some of the functions and tasks that the
individual with a disability cannot perform for him or herself. “Seeing
eye dogs” are one type of service animal, used by some individuals who
are blind. This is the type of service animal with which most people
are familiar. But there are service animals that assist persons with
other kinds of disabilities in their day-to-day activities. Some
examples include:

_____Alerting persons with hearing impairments to sounds.

_____ Pulling wheelchairs or carrying and picking up things for persons
with mobility impairments.

_____Assisting persons with mobility impairments with balance.

Q: How can I tell if an animal is really a service animal and not just
a pet?

A: 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. Therefore,
such documentation generally may not be required as a condition for
providing service to an individual accompanied by a service animal.
Although a number of states have programs to certify service animals,
you may not insist on proof of state certification before permitting
the service animal to accompany the person with a disability.

Q: What must I do when an individual with a service animal comes to my
business?

A: The service animal must be permitted to accompany the individual
with a disability to all areas of the facility where customers are
normally allowed to go. An individual with a service animal may not be
segregated from other customers.

Q: I have always had a clearly posted “no pets” policy at my
establishment. Do I still have to allow service animals in?

A: Yes. A service animal is not a pet. The ADA requires you to modify
your “no pets” policy to allow the use of a service animal by a person
with a disability. This does not mean you must abandon your “no pets”
policy altogether but simply that you must make an exception to your
general rule for service animals.

Q: My county health department has told me that only a seeing eye or
guide dog has to be admitted. If I follow those regulations, am I
violating the ADA?

A: Yes, if you refuse to admit any other type of service animal on the
basis of local health department regulations or other state or local
laws. The ADA provides greater protection for individuals with
disabilities and so it takes priority over the local or state laws or
regulations.

Q: Can I charge a maintenance or cleaning fee for customers who bring
service animals into my business?

A: No. Neither a deposit nor a surcharge may be imposed on an
individual with a disability as a condition to allowing a service
animal to accompany the individual with a disability, even if deposits
are routinely required for pets. However, a public accommodation may
charge its customers with disabilities if a service animal causes
damage so long as it is the regular practice of the entity to charge
non-disabled customers for the same types of damages. For example, a
hotel can charge a guest with a disability for the cost of repairing or
cleaning furniture damaged by a service animal if it is the hotel’s
policy to charge when non-disabled guests cause such damage.

Q: I operate a private taxicab and I don’t want animals in my taxi;
they smell, shed hair and sometimes have “accidents.” Am I violating
the ADA if I refuse to pick up someone with a service animal?

A: Yes. Taxicab companies may not refuse to provide services to
individuals with disabilities. Private taxicab companies are also
prohibited from charging higher fares or fees for transporting
individuals with disabilities and their service animals than they
charge to other persons for the same or equivalent service.

Q: Am I responsible for the animal while the person with a disability
is in my business?

A: No. The care or supervision of a service animal is solely the
responsibility of his or her owner. You are not required to provide
care or food or a special location for the animal.

Q: What if a service animal barks or growls at other people, or
otherwise acts out of control?

A: You may exclude any animal, including a service animal, from your
facility when that animal’s behavior poses a direct threat to the
health or safety of others. For example, any service animal that
displays vicious behavior towards other guests or customers may be
excluded. You may not make assumptions, however, about how a particular
animal is likely to behave based on your past experience with other
animals. Each situation must be considered individually.

Although a public accommodation may exclude any service animal that is
out of control, it should give the individual with a disability who
uses the service animal the option of continuing to enjoy its goods and
services without having the service animal on the premises.

Q: Can I exclude an animal that doesn’t really seem dangerous but is
disruptive to my business?

A: There may be a few circumstances when a public accommodation is not
required to accommodate a service animal–that is, when doing so would
result in a fundamental alteration to the nature of the business.
Generally, this is not likely to occur in restaurants, hotels, retail
stores, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities. But when it
does, for example, when a dog barks during a movie, the animal can be
excluded.

If you have further questions about service animals or other
requirements of the ADA, you may call the U.S. Department of Justice’s
toll-free ADA Information Line at 800-514-0301 (voice) or
800-514-0383 (TDD).

Leave a comment

Filed under animal protection laws, dog laws, Dogs

U.S. Title 42>Chapter 21>Subchapter I. § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983
Prev | Next
§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Leave a comment

Filed under animal protection laws