No Service Animals, Only Service Dogs

We talked a few days ago about the new rules coming down from the feds regarding the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Justice Department's position that ADA trumps any local breed specific legislation. It's a good move, and one that is sure to make a lot of animal advocates (present company included) very happy. If you want the full document, you can find it here; scroll down about halfway to find the service animal stuff.

But another part of the new set of rules may earn the Justice Department some ill will from the service animal community. You see, under the new rules, the only recognized species for service animals is dogs. So, if your helper is a capuchin monkey or perhaps a parrot, you're not going to be able to claim ADA protections. (It should be noted that other federal protections, such as those affecting housing, may or may not still apply.)

You can see the arguments for both sides. You can say the Justice Department is wrong on this one, and point to the wide varietyof non-canine service animals out there. For example, miniature horses do yeoman's work helping the blind. Quadri- and paraplegics often rely on primates, especially monkeys, to help them with all kinds of daily tasks. Those animals are helping their human partners in myriad ways, every day. Shouldn't they deserve the same legal recognition that service dogs will (and do) receive?

But then there's the Justice Department's side of things as well. Remember, the watchword for governmental regulation, especially federal regulation on something as important as the ADA, is consistency. The point of the ADA is to make sure that people have the same basic rights to access everywhere in the U.S. In order to do that, the rules have to be consistent and, frankly, fairly easy to enforce.

Let's say, as an example, the Justice Department backs down a little and says, "Ok, you can have primates." Great, but what kind of primates? How about a chimpanzee? Or maybe some type of monkey? If so, which type? Let's say a capuchin, since they're already in the mix as far as service animals go. But, there are nine different capuchin species, and DOJ would basically have to give an up-or-down on each one. And every decision they would make in this scenario would create more confusion, not to mention lawsuits.

Not that there probably won't be lawsuits anyway. While canines are a substantial chunk of the service animal population, there are a lot of other animals out there working, and their human partners are rightfully going to want to defend their interests.

In the end however, despite the added complications that come from a more detailed analysis of service animals, the Justice Department may have bitten off a little more than they can chew by limiting their definition to dogs and only dogs. In addition to the likely litigation on behalf of various other species, the Justice Department is being somewhat insensitive. After all, dogs are great, but there are some things they just can't do.

This isn't a cut-and-dried case of right versus wrong. Throughout the explanatory parts of the DOJ's rulings, you can see a real effort to do right by the people they serve. There are no bad guys, just the Justice Department lawyers trying to do the right thing and service animal advocates standing up for their partners.

Photo credit: Lisa Norwood