Disrespected by impostors
Regarding The Associated Press news story “Impostor service animals posing growing problem across U.S.” (Oct. 11 and TribLIVE.com): Media stories on “impostor service dogs” are increasing regarding public access of people who “pass” their pets as service dogs.
In addition to public access, there are different laws around housing, employment and air travel that are not addressed.
The Americans with Disabilities Act protects the rights of people with disabilities, with the Justice Department enforcing service-dog laws.
Vests and badges do not make a service dog. A service dog can be any breed and is defined as a dog that is “individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person's disability.”
Pets in a store that has food present a health risk to other customers and a business risk to owners.
This is not a harmless law to break and it is the law, not a policy or rule. Theft is theft and stealing the identity of a person with a disability is no less egregious than other crimes.
Respect the rights of the owners of service dogs, which enhance the quality of their lives.
I am left wondering: Is it the human or the dog that is the impostor?
Lorre Leon Mendelson
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Atheists & religious expression
- Article painted wrong picture
- Resigning right thing
- Thomas’ ‘humanity’
- Pols’ real interest
- Show appreciation
- Mitochondrial disease awareness