Posted on 05/30/2018 6:15:14 PM PDT by Norski
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma–– A new Oklahoma state law takes a new approach to trying to curb widespread misuse of “service dog” claims and paraphernalia, but will probably fail the first time a conviction is appealed to a federal court.
Oklahoma HB 3282 addresses people who use bogus “service dog” claims and credentials to take dogs into public places where dogs are not otherwise allowed, keep dogs in “no pets” housing, take their dogs in air travel for free, or evade local prohibitions on pit bulls.
Not due to take effect until November 1, 2019, Oklahoma HB 3282 is therefore not likely to be challenged in court before then, and can be claimed by the sponsors as a legislative achievement during the fall 2018 election campaign, even if it fails immediately after the voting on November 6, 2018.
Service Dog ID (See How the Americans with Disabilities Act has become the “Pit Bull Pushers Act”.) 20 other states have tried
The intent of Oklahoma HB 3282 is not unique, but the reach of the new law is.
“Twenty-one states have in recent months mounted a major crackdown down on people who falsely claim their pets as service and support animals,” reported Adam Edelman of NBC News on May 5, 2018, four days after Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, a Republican, signed HB 3282 into law.
In April 2018, Edelman recounted, “Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton, a Democrat, signed into law a bill making it illegal for people to misrepresent their pets as service animals, under which pet-loving perps are subject to a $100 fine and a misdemeanor charge. Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed a nearly identical bill, under which those who “fraudulently misrepresent” service animals can be fined $250.”
(Excerpt) Read more at animals24-7.org ...
I thought you might find this of interest.
Why not license the dogs, issue ID tags, and make people “prove” they’re service dogs. Have physicians sign off on the need.
I saw a woman with a service dog so old, it needed it’s own service dog!! The dog could barely walk.
Now screwballs want "companion horses", "companion peacocks", "companion insects".
The people who abuse this are likely the same people who abuse handicapped parking tags.
They’re snowflakes who can’t make it through a Trump-filled day without their comfort animal.
Quit banning dogs in public life. Convert dog parks into pens to house people who dislike dogs.
Its not the dogs people dislike, moron, its the dog owners pulling this crap to violate laws and private business rights and hygiene laws.
How do you fit a companion horse in a plane?
I think the ADA does allow landlords to require an escrow to return a modified unit to original condition.
E.g., if someone wants rails along the walls, and it’s not too expensive, the landlord has to accommodate. The landlord can require reimbursement for the modification and an escrow for the cost of removal at the end of the lease.
So, perhaps, along these lines it can be put in the lease to require deep cleaning on lease termination and perhaps an escrow for carpet replacement. In addition, it might be able to have added to a lease to say if landlord’s liability policy doesn’t cover animal, that tenant to provide insurance with landlord listed as additional insured.
Calling all Muslims: Miniature Companion Horses for Sale
Sounds like the definition of “service dog” has been stretched a bit these days
Was this a Congressional allowance, or was this left up to the administration to determine?
https://www.ada.gov/archive/qasrvc.htm
Though someone has a burr in their ass over Pit Bulls, their owners are the least of the violators and abusers of the Service Animal issue. Most of the violators have little dogs and they are usually old people, millennials and homeless.
Also almost everyone is completely wrong about what a Service animal is VS. ESA - Emotional Support Animal which has no right to enter restaurants or grocery stores. And even though it's repetitive the abusers of the Act are just inconsiderate asses that treat their pets as children and make life even harder for the disable that actually have working animals that they need to survive.
The law should be specific that it is about “emotional support” dogs and other animals. Service animals are permitted by ADA and the restrictions on them are written into that law. An example being that a service animal would not be allowed in the sterile area of a hospital. A place of public accommodation is permitted to ask if the animal is a service animal and what assistance it gives. That is all. Proof or certification or special registration/licensing is not required.
The Fair Housing Act has different standards and allows for both “emotional support animals” and service animals. FHA requires covered landlords to make reasonable accommodations for tenants with ESA. The tenant is supposed to provide proof from a mental health professional that an ESA is needed.
AFAIK there is not any provision in the law which requires the mental health professional to have a personal ongoing medical relationship with the person requiring such proof. And that is the problem. Since state fair housing law cannot preempt the federal FHA by creating a “test” which circumvents the more liberal standards of the federal. A change in HUD’s FHA regulations would be required.
WAAAA! I want my Service Black Mambaa. However, I’m reasonable, if “Blackie” is too large, I’ll settle for my Sydney Funnel Web Spider.
About frikkin time !
I’ve heard about all the “service animal “ nightmares on airlines for years
These are ANIMALS duh !
If you’re not BLIND you don’t need a service animal
You need a SHRINK !
Remember the story about the lady with two pet peacocks who wanted to take them on a plane as ‘support animals?’
Fortunately, the airline declined.
Yes. It was definitely a newsworthy item. I just wish that someone had followed the peacocks’ owner as she wheeled them through the airport on her shoulder and luggage, and attempted to board. Since this person had to have male peacocks for her service animals, rather than peahens (much smaller and drab), I have come to the tentative conclusion that it was just an attention-getting stunt. If this were the case, I would be surprised that the birds’ owner wore any more clothing than a showgirl costume. Perhaps someone should alert Stormy Daniels as to the publicity possibilities of attempting this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.