Caninephiles in Colorado flout the law: service animal fraud

[Metaphor]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...do-is-cracking-down-on-service-dog-fraud.html

The Saint Bernard was wearing a service vest and tearing into a quadriplegic woman’s golden retriever on the floor of the mall food court. Both dogs were allegedly service animals. But after mall security tore the Saint Bernard off, its owner blamed the other dog owner’s disability.

“He said his dog was startled by her wheelchair,” Angela Eaton, one the golden retriever’s trainers told the Daily Beast. “Well service dogs should be growing up around a wheelchair.”

Service animal fraud is a growing problem in dog-friendly Colorado, says Eaton, who has been training service dogs for 35 years. State legislators agree; the Colorado House unanimously passed a bill on Monday that would make it a crime to misrepresent a pet as a service animal in the state. But vague service dog guidelines and a growing acceptance of “emotional support dogs” have blurred the line between pet and working animal.

“According to the testimony we heard in committee, it’s a pretty serious problem. It’s a particularly serious problem in supermarkets, where more and more people are bringing pets and claiming that they’re service animals,” Daniel Kagan, a Colorado state representative sponsoring the bill told the Daily Beast. “Many of these pets misrepresented as service animals are misbehaving, they’re assaulting other dogs on a regular basis, soiling the supermarket, and posing not only a security issue but a health issue.”

I know I'm an outsider on this issue, but why do 'dog people' feel the need to take their 'family members' everywhere? Will you really and truly be devastated if you don't see your dog for the one hour it'll take to do your groceries?

His bill would impose a $350 to $1,000 fine for first-time offenders, and penalties up to $5,000 and 10 hours of community service for repeat offenders.

But some disability law experts say the bill oversimplifies the complicated relationship between people with disabilities and their animals. Alison Daniels, director of legal services for Disability Law Colorado testified against the bill, arguing that it would do more harm than good for people with disabilities.

“People with disabilities legitimately get companion animals for housing. So the little fluffy white dog you see is helping them get up in the morning. It's giving them a reason to live,” Daniels told the Daily Beast. “The problem is, people have this companion animal so they think 'I can take this animal to the grocery store or the movies.’"

What happened to drinking alone in your room to manage anxiety and depression? Sheesh, am I so old-fashioned?

Daniels says people with disabilities might not understand the distinctions between a certified service animal and a therapy animal, and could stand to lose Section Eight housing or jobs if convicted of falsing presenting their pet as a service dog.

But even the laws governing official service dog certifications are murky.

Eaton and her organization Canine Partners of the Rockies are accredited by Assistance Dogs International, a service dog standards group. ADI-accredited trainers must train dogs to assist people with specific disabilities. A hearing assistance dog should be able to hear a baby crying, or a phone ringing, and lead their owner to the source of the sound. Guide dogs should be able to lead a blind person through traffic. The dogs Eaton trains, which assist people with mobility issues, must be able to open doors and guide wheelchairs.

But no U.S. law requires ADI accreditation, or any other kind of certification for service animals. The Americans with Disabilities Act only defines a service animal as "a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability."

These loose guidelines have given rise to a cottage industry of “service animal” websites like the National Service Animal Registry, which, for $64.95 plus $7.95 shipping and no background check whatsoever, will send you a package of unofficial service animal ID cards, certificates, and patches. And because the ADA does not set any criteria for service animal training, it’s all perfectly legal.

The site also sells certifications for “emotional support animals,” a classification of animal that does not perform specific physical tasks for people with disabilities, but might help support a person with generalized anxiety, or other mental health issues. These animals -- which sometimes sport official-looking vests or patches -- have seen increasing acceptance on airplanes and in public spaces, assisting people with emotional issues, but creating confusion over the animals’ official classification.

“Even the legislators did not understand the difference between service animal, therapy animal, companion animal, and a pet,” Daniels said. “So [legislators] are taking an area of law that is not well understood and criminalizing it.”

Colorado wouldn’t be the first jurisdiction to craft laws in attempt to keep up with the rise in unofficial support animals.

The city of Beaver Dam, Wisconsin revised their laws to classify service animals as dogs and miniature horses, after a local woman made national news for getting kicked out of a McDonald’s with “Jimmy,” her therapy kangaroo.

Even the Trumps are in on the trend.

Ivana Trump allegedly flashed a therapy animal card when toting her miniature Yorkie into Manhattan’s high-end Altesi Ristorante in June 2014, sparking complaints from other diners.

“Lunch was ruined because Ivana Trump sat next to us with her dog which she even let climb to the table. I told her no dogs allowed but she lied that hers was a service dog,” reads a review on the restaurant’s Google review page, discovered by the New Yorker’s Patricia Marx.

When Marx called the restaurant, owner Paolo Alavian said he was obligated to allow support animals. “She walked into the restaurant and she showed the emotional-support card,” Alavian told her. “Basically, people with the card are allowed to bring their dogs into the restaurant. This is the law.”

But it isn’t the law in New York or in Colorado, despite popular belief.

“As far as the ADA is concerned, the law is not for emotional support animals,” a representative at the Denver Office of Disability Rights told the Daily Beast. “They have to perform a function like open doors to be considered a service animal.”

But as long as people can legally represent their pets as service animals, the state says pet owners and service dog owners will continue to fight for space.

“Right now, if somebody misrepresents that their animal is a service animal, that is not an offence,” Kagan said. “All you have to do to get the access a service animal has, is you have to lie about it and say ‘hey, this is a service animal,’ and there’s not a darn thing anybody can do about it.”

Daniels, meanwhile, says she might reconsider the bill if it followed an extensive program educating people on disability and service animal rights. But she says the state’s biggest offenders are not individual dog owners, but the companies profiting off service animal fraud.

“We're focusing on this group of people who likely doesn't know,” Daniels said. “But the real problem is online. You can say 'how can I get a service animal vest,' punch in a few things, and lo and behold, a service vest is delivered to your door. Those are the people we need to be focusing on.”

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Shouldn't this be in the white people problems thread?

While I agree with you that these people are stupid, I'm having difficulty working up an emotion over this. On the scale of zero to I don't give a shit, it's barely an 86.

 

[Metaphor]

Shouldn't this be in the white people problems thread?

While I agree with you that these people are stupid, I'm having difficulty working up an emotion over this. On the scale of zero to I don't give a shit, it's barely an 86.

Dog owners make their dogs everyone's problem.

 

[bilby]

I know I'm an outsider on this issue, but why do 'dog people' feel the need to take their 'family members' everywhere? Will you really and truly be devastated if you don't see your dog for the one hour it'll take to do your groceries?

I'm not an outsider on this issue; I am a 'dog person', and I view my pets as members of my family - but like the VAST majority of people in my position, I do NOT pretend that my dogs are service dogs, and nor do I try to smuggle them into places where non-service dogs are not permitted.

In fact, this is a complete non-issue in Australia. I would suggest that this is, in fact, just another Metaphor thread in which he seeks to demean those who do not agree with him on trivial topics. If you have to look 13,600km from home for an example, then it's probably not a major concern for you; Denver Colorado dog owners likely have very little impact on the life of ACT residents.

Yes, I like dogs. I like women. I also like beer, football, and a good number of specific TV shows that are likely not to everyone's taste - and I don't think any worse of anyone who does NOT like any of those things.

Are people who take any of their preferences to the obsessive extreme of breaking the law and/or inconveniencing their fellow citizens deplorable? Of course they are.

But as long as they are very rare indeed - as is the case in the OP - they are unlikely to make the top billion in my 'things to give a flying fuck about' list. They certainly don't get anywhere CLOSE to as far up that list as 'People who post passive-aggressive threads that paint entire swathes of humanity as obsessive lunatics because they happen not to agree with my minority opinion' (nor, at the risk of well-poisoning, do they get as far up that list as 'people who post insulting OPs and then backpedal furiously when called on their shit').

 

[Metaphor]

I know I'm an outsider on this issue, but why do 'dog people' feel the need to take their 'family members' everywhere? Will you really and truly be devastated if you don't see your dog for the one hour it'll take to do your groceries?

I'm not an outsider on this issue; I am a 'dog person', and I view my pets as members of my family - but like the VAST majority of people in my position, I do NOT pretend that my dogs are service dogs, and nor do I try to smuggle them into places where non-service dogs are not permitted.

In fact, this is a complete non-issue in Australia. I would suggest that this is, in fact, just another Metaphor thread in which he seeks to demean those who do not agree with him on trivial topics. If you have to look 13,600km from home for an example, then it's probably not a major concern for you; Denver Colorado dog owners likely have very little impact on the life of ACT residents.

Yes, I like dogs. I like women. I also like beer, football, and a good number of specific TV shows that are likely not to everyone's taste - and I don't think any worse of anyone who does NOT like any of those things.

Are people who take any of their preferences to the obsessive extreme of breaking the law and/or inconveniencing their fellow citizens deplorable? Of course they are.

But as long as they are very rare indeed - as is the case in the OP - they are unlikely to make the top billion in my 'things to give a flying fuck about' list. They certainly don't get anywhere CLOSE to as far up that list as 'People who post passive-aggressive threads that paint entire swathes of humanity as obsessive lunatics because they happen not to agree with my minority opinion' (nor, at the risk of well-poisoning, do they get as far up that list as 'people who post insulting OPs and then backpedal furiously when called on their shit').

Where does 'posting on a thread solely to talk about how trivial the OP and his concerns are' rate on your list?

 

[zorq]

Where does 'posting on a thread solely to talk about how trivial the OP and his concerns are' rate on your list?

We can all use some perspective some times. Really. It won't hurt you to find out that some stupid shit in the world really doesn't affect you or likely anyone else on this board in any way.

 

[bilby]

I'm not an outsider on this issue; I am a 'dog person', and I view my pets as members of my family - but like the VAST majority of people in my position, I do NOT pretend that my dogs are service dogs, and nor do I try to smuggle them into places where non-service dogs are not permitted.

In fact, this is a complete non-issue in Australia. I would suggest that this is, in fact, just another Metaphor thread in which he seeks to demean those who do not agree with him on trivial topics. If you have to look 13,600km from home for an example, then it's probably not a major concern for you; Denver Colorado dog owners likely have very little impact on the life of ACT residents.

Yes, I like dogs. I like women. I also like beer, football, and a good number of specific TV shows that are likely not to everyone's taste - and I don't think any worse of anyone who does NOT like any of those things.

Are people who take any of their preferences to the obsessive extreme of breaking the law and/or inconveniencing their fellow citizens deplorable? Of course they are.

But as long as they are very rare indeed - as is the case in the OP - they are unlikely to make the top billion in my 'things to give a flying fuck about' list. They certainly don't get anywhere CLOSE to as far up that list as 'People who post passive-aggressive threads that paint entire swathes of humanity as obsessive lunatics because they happen not to agree with my minority opinion' (nor, at the risk of well-poisoning, do they get as far up that list as 'people who post insulting OPs and then backpedal furiously when called on their shit').

Where does 'posting on a thread solely to talk about how trivial the OP and his concerns are' rate on your list?

It doesn't. But defending myself and my fellow 'dog people' from unwarranted derogation rates fairly high.

The proportion of Muslims who are terrorists is minuscule; but that doesn't mean that a Muslim who points out how small a proportion of Muslims are terrorists is doing so "solely to talk about how trivial the Islamophobe and his concerns are" - He is also defending himself and his fellow Muslims from an unwarranted attack.

Your concerns are based on trivia; but your conclusions - that "'dog people' feel the need to take their 'family members' everywhere", that we will "be devastated if you don't see your dog for the one hour it'll take to do your groceries", and that "Dog owners make their dogs everyone's problem" is not trivial - it is bigotry and it is aimed at me. You can fucking stop it.

 

[TSwizzle]

"Service dog" my ass, typical selfish dog owners.

 

[Metaphor]

Your concerns are based on trivia; but your conclusions - that "'dog people' feel the need to take their 'family members' everywhere", that we will "be devastated if you don't see your dog for the one hour it'll take to do your groceries", and that "Dog owners make their dogs everyone's problem" is not trivial - it is bigotry and it is aimed at me. You can fucking stop it.

Dog owners have repeatedly subjected me to the negative externalities of their dog ownership, and this is often coupled with blanket dismissal of my legitimate grievances.

Mercifully, the streets in Australia are no longer as menacing as they were in the 1990s. One vicious, untethered animal mauled my (then living) father in the early 1990s and far from getting an apology, people had the audacity to say to us 'oh, he's never attacked anyone before', implying my father was at fault. Well, they were fined in court for that incident at least. I carry psychological scars to this day from delivering pamphlets as a pre-teen and having to navigate the dual dangers of violent dogs and their callous owners.

Be careful what you wish for, though. My neighbours (the ones with the incessantly barking dog) moved out recently, and a few weeks later they were replaced. By neighbours with two incessantly barking dogs.

bilby, my threads do not harm you as a dog owner. If you don't engage in the behaviours that the people in the OP do, then the OP isn't about you.

 

[bilby]

Your concerns are based on trivia; but your conclusions - that "'dog people' feel the need to take their 'family members' everywhere", that we will "be devastated if you don't see your dog for the one hour it'll take to do your groceries", and that "Dog owners make their dogs everyone's problem" is not trivial - it is bigotry and it is aimed at me. You can fucking stop it.

Dog owners have repeatedly subjected me to the negative externalities of their dog ownership, and this is often coupled with blanket dismissal of my legitimate grievances.

Really? All of us? I don't recall my participation in this.

Mercifully, the streets in Australia are no longer as menacing as they were in the 1990s. One vicious, untethered animal mauled my (then living) father in the early 1990s and far from getting an apology, people had the audacity to say to us 'oh, he's never attacked anyone before', implying my father was at fault. Well, they were fined in court for that incident at least. I carry psychological scars to this day from delivering pamphlets as a pre-teen and having to navigate the dual dangers of violent dogs and their callous owners.

I see. So had you been mugged by a person of Aboriginal appearance, you would consider that justification for saying 'Aborigines are lawless criminals'? Or is the use of anecdotal evidence about a small number of incidents to characterize an entire group only bigotry under certain circumstances? If so, what are the criteria that make such predjudice acceptable?

Be careful what you wish for, though. My neighbours (the ones with the incessantly barking dog) moved out recently, and a few weeks later they were replaced. By neighbours with two incessantly barking dogs.

bilby, my threads do not harm you as a dog owner. If you don't engage in the behaviours that the people in the OP do, then the OP isn't about you.

Indeed. Just as saying 'Those bloody aboriginals are a bunch of thieving bastards' isn't about those aborigines who don't steal stuff, so they shouldn't object to it.

 

[Metaphor]

Really? All of us? I don't recall my participation in this.

No, not all of you.

I see. So had you been mugged by a person of Aboriginal appearance, you would consider that justification for saying 'Aborigines are lawless criminals'? Or is the use of anecdotal evidence about a small number of incidents to characterize an entire group only bigotry under certain circumstances? If so, what are the criteria that make such predjudice acceptable?

I don't have statistics on crime levels by dog ownership in the household. I'd be very curious to see them, though.

Indeed. Just as saying 'Those bloody aboriginals are a bunch of thieving bastards' isn't about those aborigines who don't steal stuff, so they shouldn't object to it.

You know, when somebody in the 'white fragility' thread complained about white people being painted with a broad brush, the language and OP was defended on the exact same basis I just used -- if you don't engage in the behaviour, the OP isn't talking about you.

 

[bilby]

No, not all of you.

I see. So had you been mugged by a person of Aboriginal appearance, you would consider that justification for saying 'Aborigines are lawless criminals'? Or is the use of anecdotal evidence about a small number of incidents to characterize an entire group only bigotry under certain circumstances? If so, what are the criteria that make such predjudice acceptable?

I don't have statistics on crime levels by dog ownership in the household. I'd be very curious to see them, though.

Indeed. Just as saying 'Those bloody aboriginals are a bunch of thieving bastards' isn't about those aborigines who don't steal stuff, so they shouldn't object to it.

You know, when somebody in the 'white fragility' thread complained about white people being painted with a broad brush, the language and OP was defended on the exact same basis I just used -- if you don't engage in the behaviour, the OP isn't talking about you.

Really? And I should give a shit about this why? Does the fact that someone else engaged in a moronic argument make it suddenly OK for you or I to do the same?

Is everyone who isn't you or someone you care about, basically the same, awful, cruel, and evil person in your eyes?

Somebody's dog attacked your father, and was an asshole about it, so now all dog owners are assholes.

Someone who disagreed with you made a stupid and incoherent argument, so now all disagreement with you is stupid and incoherent.

This is the very definition of prejudiced and bigoted behaviour. If you object to other people's bigotry, then you need to stop doing that - unless you actively desire to be a hypocrite.

 

[Metaphor]

Really? And I should give a shit about this why? Does the fact that someone else engaged in a moronic argument make it suddenly OK for you or I to do the same?

The argument didn't seem to bother you then. I'm just pointing out that I didn't come up with the idea. But I'm happy to change my language to 'some dog owners'.

Is everyone who isn't you or someone you care about, basically the same, awful, cruel, and evil person in your eyes?

Um...no?

Somebody's dog attacked your father, and was an asshole about it, so now all dog owners are assholes.

Someone who disagreed with you made a stupid and incoherent argument, so now all disagreement with you is stupid and incoherent.

This is the very definition of prejudiced and bigoted behaviour. If you object to other people's bigotry, then you need to stop doing that - unless you actively desire to be a hypocrite.

Tell me, if I had not made the third post responding to Tom Sawyer, would you have refrained from commenting on my thread? Would you have refrained from telling me my concerns and priorities are ridiculous?

 

[bilby]

The argument didn't seem to bother you then.

What makes you think I even SAW the argument then? And why would my failure to object to an argument used in a conversation I am NOT a part of have any bearing on whether I should accept that form of argument in a conversation I am engaged in??

I'm just pointing out that I didn't come up with the idea. But I'm happy to change my language to 'some dog owners'.

Is everyone who isn't you or someone you care about, basically the same, awful, cruel, and evil person in your eyes?

Um...no?

Then why the fuck are you acting as though the misbehaviour of part of a group - in this case, dog owners - is something that applies to the entire group, or that justifies your slurs against us?

Somebody's dog attacked your father, and was an asshole about it, so now all dog owners are assholes.

Someone who disagreed with you made a stupid and incoherent argument, so now all disagreement with you is stupid and incoherent.

This is the very definition of prejudiced and bigoted behaviour. If you object to other people's bigotry, then you need to stop doing that - unless you actively desire to be a hypocrite.

Tell me, if I had not made the third post responding to Tom Sawyer, would you have refrained from commenting on my thread? Would you have refrained from telling me my concerns and priorities are ridiculous?

What the fuck are you on about? I am responding to your OP, not to any other post made by a third party. As it happens, I didn't even read the other two posts before responding; although I did include your response to Tom Sawyer as an excellent example of your prejudice in a later post (#7). What possible difference that makes I don't know - are you claiming that your post #3 is not your opinion? Perhaps someone hacked into your TFT account and made that post without your knowledge? Why would you imagine that that particular post would change my response?

You are being bigoted and prejudicial. I am not simply saying that your 'concerns and priorities are ridiculous'; I am calling you on your bigotry and prejudice. And I am pointing out that your seeking evidence to support that bigotry and prejudice from the other side of the world suggests that you don't have a lot of local justification for your position - so your stated reasons for your bigotry and prejudice are also petty.

 

[Metaphor]

What makes you think I even SAW the argument then? And why would my failure to object to an argument used in a conversation I am NOT a part of have any bearing on whether I should accept that form of argument in a conversation I am engaged in??

You don't appear to have posted in the thread. I don't know whether you read it or not (back then).

If you did read the thread and chose not to call out the people who made the same argument I did, I suspect it was because it wasn't your ox being gored. But, in any case, I agree. #NotAllDogOwners

Then why the fuck are you acting as though the misbehaviour of part of a group - in this case, dog owners - is something that applies to the entire group, or that justifies your slurs against us?

Almost nothing applies to an entire group, but that doesn't stop people on this board discussing solutions that apply to an entire group. All men are not rapists, but we're implored to 'teach boys not to rape'.

However, the only 'slur' I can see is my response to Tom Sawyer, where I (without qualification) said 'dog owners make it everyone's problem'.

What the fuck are you on about? I am responding to your OP, not to any other post made by a third party.

No, I don't mean a third party post, I mean the second post I made in the thread.

The first post I made does not contain anything that I'd consider a slur. I asked a question , albeit in a mocking tone.

You are being bigoted and prejudicial. I am not saying that your 'concerns and priorities are ridiculous'; I am calling you on your bigotry and prejudice. And I am pointing out that your seeking evidence to support that bigotry and prejudice from the other side of the world suggests that you don't have a lot of local justification for your position - so your stated reasons for your bigotry and prejudice are also petty.

I don't need to go to the other side of the world to find the negative externalities that dog owners put on people. My current neighbours have dogs that bark every time I move in my kitchen or step in to the backyard.

The neighbour two doors down has twice let his dog bound up to me and paw my crotch while he was washing his car. (Precisely why he has to have his dog there while he washes his car I'm sure I don't know). I don't like my crotch being pawed by dogs and I don't find condescending half-apologies of 'he likes you' or 'he's being playful' at all comforting.

Anyway, I can't be prejudiced. Some of my best friends own dogs.*

*This is meant to be funny. Obviously, I don't have any friends.

 

[faded_Glory]

This is how it works. First, you (I am not referring to anyone in particular) classify people. Next, you find some fault with some of the people in one of the classified groups. Then, you blame all of the members of the group for the fault. Finally, when called out on this by a member of the group who does not actually have the fault, you say you never meant to include him/her (obviously...).

This nonsense happens all the time, everywhere, and it is fucking depressing.

 

[RavenSky]

Well, back to the article in the OP:

The Saint Bernard was wearing a service vest and tearing into a quadriplegic woman’s golden retriever on the floor of the mall food court. Both dogs were allegedly service animals. But after mall security tore the Saint Bernard off, its owner blamed the other dog owner’s disability.

“He said his dog was startled by her wheelchair,” Angela Eaton, one the golden retriever’s trainers told the Daily Beast. “Well service dogs should be growing up around a wheelchair.”

Service animal fraud is a growing problem in dog-friendly Colorado, says Eaton, who has been training service dogs for 35 years. State legislators agree; the Colorado House unanimously passed a bill on Monday that would make it a crime to misrepresent a pet as a service animal in the state. But vague service dog guidelines and a growing acceptance of “emotional support dogs” have blurred the line between pet and working animal.

I don't know if it is sloppy reporting or that the laws are different in Colorado, but there is a difference between "service animals" and "emotional support animals" and, in Florida at least, the rules for where they are allowed to go are different.

"Service animals" are highly trained to a specific task or tasks meant to assist a disable person be independent. The best known example is the "seeing eye dog" but there are animals trained to "hear" for their owners, others are trained to perform activities for their owners, etc. And yes, as noted in the OP article, these animals are trained not to react to people/situations around them and they are carefully chosen for their temperament to avoid exactly what happened in the OP article. In Florida, these are the animals that are allowed to accompany their owner into restaurants, grocery store and other places that pets are typically not allowed.

"Emotional Support Animals" are equally important, and their need by the person is also certified to by their doctor, but the animal is not trained to any specific task. In Florida, unlike service animals, ESA's are NOT allowed in public places where pets are not allowed. At the same time, they are allowed in the person's home - even if it is against condo/apartment restrictions - as long as it is a "reasonable accommodation".

Medical privacy laws restrict anyone (law enforcement, property managers, etc) from demanding evidence of a disability (physical or emotional) as proof of need for the animal, and unfortunately it is extremely easy to obtain a phony vest for the animal and/or "certification card". Moreover, the vests/cards are not required in the first place. In the OP, it sounds like the phony "service dog" had the vest while the more probable "service dog" did not.

I do agree that the "emotional support animal" designation is abused by self-centered assholes who simply think the rules should not apply to them. I personally know one young woman (a former friend of my daughter) who's father paid a doctor friend to write a letter so the girl could keep her Husky in an apartment building that did not allow big dogs. This is wrong. But that does not mean that all "emotional support animals" are frauds.

I think the solution is really very simple - better regulation of the companies selling the vests/certificates and better regulation of the companies claiming to train service/emotional support animals. (I've seen too many of these training companies conflate the two in their own ads to believe that they are anything other than a scam). I also think that Florida (for once) handles the situation correctly in that they allow the highly-trained service animal into restricted public places, but not ESA's. Both types of animal are, however, allowed exemptions from 'no animal' or weight limit type housing rules at the person's home. This will not stop people like my daughter's ex-friend and her less than ethical doctor, but it would stop people like the St. Bernard owner in the OP from taking his pet to the mall to harm genuine service animals (and annoy Metaphor)

 

[Playball40]

Shouldn't this be in the white people problems thread?

While I agree with you that these people are stupid, I'm having difficulty working up an emotion over this. On the scale of zero to I don't give a shit, it's barely an 86.

Unless you or your kid has severe allergies to dogs. Then it's a problem.
Or perhaps you don't mind slipping on dog piss at the grocery store.
Or eating off a table Fifi just took a crap on.

I'm with Metaphor on this one. I enjoy animals - just about all animals. But I'm not going to allow my daughter to take her pet rat to the movies with her - even if he does help her anxiety.

 

[Toni]

I don't care what anyone else says: Bilby wins this thread.

 

[Malintent]

This is how it works. First, you (I am not referring to anyone in particular) classify people. Next, you find some fault with some of the people in one of the classified groups. Then, you blame all of the members of the group for the fault. Finally, when called out on this by a member of the group who does not actually have the fault, you say you never meant to include him/her (obviously...).

This nonsense happens all the time, everywhere, and it is fucking depressing.

Actually you have some of the steps backwards... it goes like this:

First, you (and I do mean you and everyone else), judges an individual based upon their actions, or the effect of their actions upon you. This is called Incident Management.
Second, you categorize the incident and store into long term memory various attributes about the individual, the incident, and other metrics. this is called Problem Management.
Third, you develop rules for dealing with future incidents, relating to how you deal with other individuals and situations. That is called Risk Management.

The things you do to mitigate risk in your life is based on your skills of incident and problem management.

If a set of characteristics keeps coming up in incidents and you fail to engage in adequate problem management, you are probably a SJW.
If you over-categorize and implement for too extreme mitigations on too broad a group, you are probably a racist.