The Skies Aren’t So Friendly For Autism Assistance Dogs Either
August 9, 2008 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Animals, Disability Rights, Travel
There’s been lots of reports of autistic children benefiting from therapy dogs and of the dogs even attending school as “four-footed aides.” But there’s also been at least one account of a specially trained therapy dog being excluded from a school setting. And, this past July, Karen Shirk, the director of 4 Paws for Ability, and three trained autism assistance dogs were blocked from boarding a Qantas flight at the Los Angeles Airport, en route to traveling to Waikato in New Zealand. Three families there had spent two years fund-raising for the dogs and now have an additional $33,000 to pay for the transport of the dogs and the 4 Paws staff. Shirk had booked American Airlines tickets online and confirmed that service dogs were allowed in the cabin with passengers, but when switching to Qantas Airlines in Los Angeles to continue to New Zealand, it was revealed that Qantas did not know about the dogs. This ensued:
After a 20-minute argument at the boarding gate, the group’s bags were off-loaded and the plane departed.
The group checked into a hotel, determined to keep their promise to the three Waikato families to deliver the dogs, but the battle was not over.
During the next three days Ms Shirk was told by Qantas she would have to pay for six economy seats (three extra for the dogs) and the earliest available flight was July 20 because, Qantas said, it would need dog certificates which would take it six days to process.
Finally the group decided to transport the dogs in the cargo hold and upgrade to business class, just to get an earlier flight.
“We were desperate at that point so I put it all on my credit card. I will never, ever fly Qantas again.”
Ms Shirk ended up paying almost $30,000 on top of the original ticket price for two business class seats and one economy.
“I was livid. They just didn’t want us on the plane with the dogs. It was pitiful.”Since the incident, Ms Shirk has tried to make a complaint with both airlines.
In the US, questions have arisen about the presence of animals in public places.
And it’s a bit ironic that Qantas is the airline who refused the autism assistance dogs: If you know your autism movie history, in the 1988 Rain Man, Qantas is the only airline that Raymond Babbitt will fly because it has the best safety record.
Jeff Stimpson
Jill Cornfield
Wow. I truly ashamed to be aussie in this case.
I hope Qantas see the error of their ways and refund the upgrade fares. And I guess it is up to the organisation that trains the dogs to liase with all airlines in these cases, to explain the importance of the dogs. I’m only glad that the delay affected the trainers and not a family and a child who was travelling with an assistance dog. Get informed Qantas.
xx
While I’m very sorry about her bad experience, a lot of AAD provider companies are frankly, NOT doing a good job.
A service dog is defined as one that does tasks to help the disabled individual. Tethering is very debateable as a task and considered VERY dangerous by many, many trainers.
Service dogs can be a HUGE help for individuals with autism! But they, just like any other type of service dog, need real tasks. Providing emotional support, a reason to socialize, and being a THERAPUTIC COMPANION is NOT the same as being a service dog. Programs are placing dogs with children who are NOT able to control them, putting the burden of controlling them on parents or other caregivers. Children with other types of disabilities are only VERY rarely given service dogs with any public access rights; guide dogs are not generally placed with children before their late teen years at the very earliest. And very few places recognize so-called ‘triad’ teams.
Having a service dog has made my life much, much fuller and richer. But people using autism as an excuse to drag a furry security blanket/babysitter in public along with their child has soured a great many people on the whole concept of service dogs for autism spectrum disabilities.
Please realize that service dogs in training are not required to be allowed in the cabin. Also realize that Karen Shirk’s service dog school is terrible. First of all, they practice tethering. This means that they tie young children to dogs. This ends up greatly endangering both the child and the dog. Many times the dog isn’t that well trained either. Also, they give service dogs to young children that cannot handle the dog. This is wrong. The dog basically ends up acting as a baby sitter to the child.
If anyone should get informed it should be the writer of this article and anyone who supports Karen Shirk.
I think that Sidash should read up a little more about the “3 part tethering system” for children with Autism. Never is your child tethered to his dog, unless a parent or other trained individual is also holding on to the dog! Karen Shirk is amazing and her organization is the top for successful placement & training. My son will be receiving his service dog in 24 days. We have to attend a two week training & graduate as handlers for these specially trained service dogs. 4 Paws was not transporting “service dogs in training” to New Zealand….these were trained service dogs being delivered to three families who worked hard to get them. The families had to do the same training with Karen & trainers in order to have these dogs released to them. It is the families in training, not the dogs placed.
Please before spouting lies and slander about this organization…consider this, over 400 amazing dogs trained in tracking, seizure alert, mobility assistance, and tethering as a 3-part-system have been successfully placed through 4 Paws for Ability. If you would like I can put you in contact with at least 200 who would love to give you a piece of their mind and help you understand that these dogs are not just “therapy dogs”. My son is in need of tethering (to avoid being hit by traffic, trains, or bolting), he needs tracking because he is non-verbal, a wanderer, and a danger to himself because he doesn’t understand what danger or lost is & is attracted to water! My son doesn’t understand hot & cold, he has a sever delay to pain as well. Look up Noah Burke, Sammy Boehlke, Kaylie Dickerson, Jared McGuire,… I have a list a mile long if you need more names of lost children with Autism that were never found or found dead! What if they had a service dog? There are so many families raising money to bring a specially trained dog into the lives of their child & here you are bad mouthing the only organization that is helping them.
A “therapy dog” is not what we need for our son, it is a nice perk but the very least of our concerns. However, our son’s dog will be trained in Behavior Disruption, because he does hurt himself during melt downs. He bites himself, hits himself, closes his eyes & throws himself into walls or objects…behavior disruption is needed!
Therapy dogs are important too. A very good friend of mine as has Aspergers syndrome. He can talk & doesn’t bolt or run…but he has massive seizures brought on by anxiety. Have you ever seen your child have a seizure? These dogs can not only help with the anxiety, but can alert parents or even the child (if they can understand).
Service Dogs are not pets, and families have to understand that they have to keep up the training & care. They are not for everyone, but for my child? 4 Paws is the only organization I trust! They have set the bar very high! I did so much research and the support network of 4 Paws is unmatched by any other organization. Long after the dog & child are matched, this organization & other families through them are there for support. I am on the phone, or on-line chatting daily with friends I have met through the 4 Paws with questions on everything to do with disabilities, therapies, service dogs & more. These families vacation together, that is how tight it is.
Thank you to all who really truly read & learn a little before voicing opinions as if they were fact. Shidash is incorrect & appears angry at this organizations founder for some apparent reason. Please don’t punish the families trying to fund raise because you have some problem with Karen Shirk. Please read up for the sake of so many!
I knew this would happen after reading about school issues. We watch a show on National Geographic called Dogs with jobs. They show the training of kids with autism and the dogs.
It irks me that wherever I go I run into dogs, and I am scared of them. I am talking about at the laundromat and in stores people bring them - regular dogs.
I think the issue of service dogs being excluded from schools is like a kid not getting their meds or shot they need. Anyway it should go all the way to the supreme court.
I agree that it is confusing about therapy dogs and service dogs. I am going to search amazon for a book, anyone know of one or read one they can recommend on the topic?
Story on the project to bring the dogs to Waikato (before the airline incident)
Waikato Times, 5/22/08
This is on the arrival:
http://tiny.cc/1kKvu
“But people using autism as an excuse . . .”
If I could never hear this phrase again in my life, I think I could be totally happy.
Theora - me too. But being autistic or having autism is NO excuse for not following the laws.
Quantas is only required to follow the laws of the countries concerned. And since the dogs were being flown to New zealand and are not classified as service dogs in New Zealand laws then they are not legally allowed to be in the aircraft cabin. These dogs will not have public access rights in New Zealand unless the government change their laws to allow dogs from the program concerned. Currently only dogs who are from programs which are approved by the government have public access rigths and dogs from other countries visiting must be from programs which are fully accredited with Assistance Dogs International which is not the case for this program which still doesn’t even have provisional membership.
Quantas is an Australian airline and as such has to follow Australian law in how dogs are carried in the passanger cabin. Australian law only allows two service dogs per aircraft, both of which are given their own seat, but are placed on the floor on an absorbant mat in front of the seat and attached to the seat via a harness concected to the seatbelt. This same law operates in many other countries including the UK and New Zealand. Just because the US decides to do something differently doesn’t mean it is the only way things are done. You cannot expect US laws to operate in every other country in the world. Most countries do have laws permitting service dogs in public places but they also have very high standards for these dogs as they do not want the problems which exist in the US of people taking out dogs for any reason at all, and with very little training. As it was Quantas extended them a courtesy by offering them the option of paying for space for the dogs, if they could provide evidence of the dogs training, which they did not have with them.
Furthermore both Australian and New Zealand law only guarantee public access rights to the disabled person accompanied by their trained and certified assistance dog. Since the person taking the dogs is not disabled, to assume that she would have access with the dogs is crazy in and of itself. Even the US does not guarantee access to dogs with trainers. Some state laws so allow such access but federal laws via the ADA do not.
Also recoginise that many countries in the world still do not have Guide dogs let alone any other form of assistance dog and to expect all countries to welcome any dogs in any public place just because the US does, shows no respect for other cultures. Just like in the US it is expected that visitors from other countries accept US laws and customs, it is also expected that US citizens travelling to other countries respect the laws and customs of those countries.
Currently it is very rare for Guide Dogs or any service dog to travel in the passenger cabin of the aircraft between the UK and the US, even with a disabled handler, because US airlines are not willing to follow the requirements which the UK has for dogs in the passenger cabin.
Something did not get communicated, it seems, as far as the dogs (1) switching airlines and (2) traveling outside the country. Has 4 Paws traveled with dogs outside the US before?
Wow, I am seeing this story from both sides now. I guess if the dogs were not actually working at the time; ie, assisting a person with autism then carriage in the hold was not unreasonable. But surely the company that trained them should have liased with the airline to organise this. If the dogs were being trained to be able to cope with airtravel; then I am guessing that again, some liason should have taken place and that maybe the 16 hour flight from LA to Auckland was not the best possible setting???
One of my friends has one of these dogs, trained by Irish Guide Dogs and it is allowed to travel to spain, on board at the child’s feet. But there is a serious amount of preplanning and liason involved and the flight to spain is only 2 1/2 hours.
As I understand it, the tethering of children who have a tendency to “bolt” happens only with the
adult handler holding the lead and controlling the dog. At the moment in Ireland, smaller children and “bolters” are given priority on waiting lists for the dogs. They will not consider my son who is 10 1/2 but have said that when my daughter (who is 9) comes up on the list, they will train the dog for both of them. My son will use the normal lead to encourage him to walk upright with out swinging about, in tandem with my husband (who will be chief handler). Whereas I think they envisage that my daughter will be tethered as you describe it.
What we want from a dog is to make my daughter more aware of anything other than herself (she also has ADD) and to calm her down and get her to sleep in the evenings with out us. Irish Assistance dogs are trained to sleep in their child’s room. This would be a HUGE achievement for us as we currently have to stay with her until solidly asleep and then she still comes into our bed at some stage.
As for long haul airtravel……
I have booked and paid for my son and myself to fly to Aus in December. About 24 hours flying with 2-3 hours of transit in Dublin, London and Singapore. We will undertake this with social stories, A DVD player and laptop computer. And the attentive and considerate service of Singapore airlines air stewards. We have requested the double seat at the rear of the plane for the comfort of ourselves and other passengers who might not enjoy a bit of flapping and as Kristina says “doing groaning” or whooping at the multi channel entertainment system in the seat back. We did this trip in 2006 and after pre-warning and pre-apologising to our neighboring passengers, they told us at the end of the flight that he was one of the better passengers on board.
This time we have planned a 2 day stopover in Singapore and I have promised a trip on the monorail at Sentosa. That and the excellent Singapore Zoo.
I honestly cannot imagine how a dog would enhance the experience for him. And I would be very anxious for the comfort of the dog. My son would want to run around with the dog, not sit still and be calm.
However. I would not even consider this trip with my daughter. We would need a nurse and a general anaesthetic. She stays home with her dad. If we ever decide to emigrate back to Aus. I dont know what we will do.
But I still think Qantas should make some guesture towards compensating the family for the expense of the upgrade. And then set up a liason for all future expeditions involving assistance dogs.
xx
It would just be a show of good will—–donations have been coming in to assist the three Waikato families.
Charlie’s done ok with transcontinental flights but talk about having to plan in advance; we don’t have plans of getting a dog.
@Hammie, Would it help to make a long trip (back to Australia for example) in segments, or would that just prolong the agony?
Please understand that those supporting dogs for young children are all very misinformed. Check out http://www.servicedogcentral.org to learn why tethering and service dogs for young children are both very wrong. The money spent on the dogs could be spent on much better things such as help for the child.
A well-trained service dog should be able to handle travel in cargo just fine. They should already be crate trained and have a temperament that will allow them to not stress and go with the flow–they should also be ok with human separation. Pet cargo travel isn’t what it used to be, it is very well monitored now and the dogs did end up just fine. Many dogs are sent even that long distance. Really, there was no need for them to travel with the trainers. They were not working and did not need them for assistance. And if the trainers had the necessary proof, it could have been handled differently.
As for tethering, that is a very controversial topic that I don’t really want to dive into. I think trained pets can be wonderful comfort and companionship to disabled children. What I worry about is there being one more stress for an already overwhelmed parent to deal with. Controlling a dog that is attached to a bolting child sounds like a lot of work. Also, there are times where this ‘tethering’ is not in 3-way teams. Like at school. There was an article a while back from this agency where a young child was tethered to their dog at school without adult control. The thing was this dog had a habit of dashing after the balls in PE. Doesn’t that make a pretty picture? Small kid, strong dog… the kid gets dragged. The fact is that dogs are dogs and none of them are ever 100% reliable.
Like you said hammie, a dog doesn’t always enhance the experience. A well trained in-home companion dog might be a better alternative for many children and their parents on the spectrum. We also need to look at the laws…as bj said New Zealand wont recognize these dogs as service dogs. It is a shame as the parents have spent so much money on them.
Quantas already has processes in place for covering assistance dogs that are based on Australian laws. These dogs would not be considered service dogs in New Zealand, nor in Australia and so to ask a company to break the laws that it is bound by, and then to reinstate payment for enforcing the law is stupid. The trainers were the ones who were irresponsible, and given that it is their mistake they should be forking out the costs themselves. It is not up to Quantas to accomoadate such dogs on the airline. In another article, the parents have admitted that these dogs are not going to be consdiered assistance dogs by New Zealand law and since they already knew that it is their choice if they want to pay thousands of dollars for a pet. You do not have to agree or like what Quantas has done but they are simply following the laws as they are set by the country they were flying to, and the country in which the airline is owned. If you do not believe in the laws of a specific country then you need to communciate that to the countries politicans, but don’t criticise a company for doing what the laws require it to do.
Also, any trained dog no matter who they are trained for should be able to handle seperation. Guide dogs who travel with handlers around the world, have regularly been required to spend vast amounts of the trip in the cargo hold, and in many countries they are not allowed in public places and so must be left where the person is staying while they use a cane or sighted guide. People get sick and have to go to hospital, and while most countries do allow such animals some access rights to hospitals they do not allow unlimited access. They cannot be in operating theatres, intensive care units and the like. These dogs must be able to cope being seperated from their handler and to assume that a dog cannot be seperated from its trainer is saying a poor amount for the trainers concerned. How will the dog be able to cope being seperated from the trainer and attached to an out of control child. How will the dogs concerned which as we already know will not have public access rights in New Zealand cope when the family is out, the child is at school, etc. If they cannot cope being in the cargo hold, then what sort of training have they had to prepare them for such things.
I am one of the mothers whose child received an Autism Assistance Dog for her child in NZ from 4 Paws For Ability Ohio. I have read all of the negative comments and feel very sad for those with little or no information on the difference these dogs can make to our children. They are more than glorified pets. Airline mishap aside, these dogs have already made a huge impact on the 3 children in NZ. We received Woogie for our son Sloan who is 6 and has HFA. Woogie is trained to hekp with behaviour disruption, calming his anxiety when in new situations or circumstances change unexpectantly, lap and over technique to apply deep pressure when he asks for it across his legs to help him relax. Woogie is not a babysitter as we (the parents) are the certified handlers, we undergo the training, not our children. Woogie has already given Sloan the confidence to do things that cause him anxiety, helped him through play and comfort to deal with emotions that can become overwhelming for people with autism. The dog is not at risk of harm from my son and my son is not being babysat by a dog. The unconditional friendship and acceptance is a gift so few human extend to those with disabilities, why would someone want to rubbish that gift? Please research more, broaden your mind. 4 Paws Ohio and Karen Shirk, delivered a priceless gift to my son , which has already enriched his life and ours in the few short weeks we have been blessed to have her. For that my husband and I are grateful and blessed. We are deeply sorry for the debt created for 4 paws due to policy and redtape, however 4 Paws Ohio is not to blame, they were doing their very best to help 3 children whose lives have just become richer, who in the future will be able to access the public just like you or I and they will not take that for granted.
Sonya
A professional facility has the responsibilty to know a country’s laws before selling a dog to someone.
A professional facility has the responsibity to know the laws and rules of transporting any dog they have agreed to ship or transport in their contract.
Quantas did eventually agree to transport the dogs in the cabin if and when they couuld provide details of the dogs training and the training credentials of the trainers. 4 paws claimed that it would take at least 6 days to gather such evidence. What sort of organisation travels with dogs to the other side of the world, with no evidence of the dogs training or of the trainers credentials. These dogs are not classified as assistance dogs in New Zealand, and if you want them to be you would have to obtain permission from the government. In order for that to happen the government is going to want some independent evidence and details of the dogs training and the trainers credentials, and yet they seem unable and/or unwilling to provide them. When the visually impaired recieve guide dogs they are given extensive details in writing of the dogs training that they can and always will have with them. A professional program hands out with the dogs a file on all of the dogs individual training sessions, the health checks, pedigrees, etc. Yet, this program not only flew these dogs from one side of the world to the other, they then enter a new country and expect these dogs to have public access rights without any respect for the laws of that country. Guide dog handlers are also given extensive details of laws of countries throughout the world, should they ever decide to travel with their dogs. Guide dogs are also reassessed on an annual basis, which this program appears to have no interest in doing
If you and other parents are the ones trained to use these dogs, and to handle these dogs, then do not even try to get into arguments about these dogs being allowed into schools which is happening all over the US. Unless you intend to attend school with your child, then the dog is there to simply babysit your child. It is not and never will be the responsibility of teachers or even teachers aids to handle a child’s assistance dog, so if the the child cannot take 100% care of the dog 100% of the time, then these dogs need to be kept out of schools and in the hands of the certified handlers, the parents. Photo’s all over 4 paws website have pictures of these dogs tethered to children, without any parent holding any leash. I am told the parent is taking the picture. But, what if at that moment the dog decided to break its training, and/or the child decided to bolt. Who is controlling the dog then. These dogs are glorified babysitters, and unless you can prove that this dog will never be tied to the child, without you holding a leash, which is simply never ever the case, then these dogs are not under the care of the parent, who is the certified handler, and hence definately are simply babysitters.
Dogs are not VCR’s they cannot be programed, and as living and breathing creatures they will and do break their training. Guide dogs break training all the time - only last week I had one from one of the most well respected programs around, rip a harness out of the handlers hand and come and try to play with my assistance dog. What happens if and when these dogs decide to do such things, they will be dragging a small child with them. Guide dogs at least are not tied to a child, and in control of a child. They also have a competent adult controlling them at all times, who can let go of the leash and harness if need be. No dog can be trained to know if and when to cross a road. It is the blind handler who decides such things. Since young children are incapeable of making such decisions then who is making them in this relationship. The parents are not always there holding the lead, and what if the dog rips the lead out of the parents hand.
You also fail to recognise that dogs are pack animals who follow a strict level of heirchy control. If the members of the pack below them do something they do not like they have a right in their own canine law to bite and attack that person. You simply cannot train this basic instinct out of a dog. What you can do is to ensure that dogs know at all times that they are below all humans. These dogs have been specifically trained to believe that they are above these children and can do anything necessary to control the child, and hence bite the child. No child under the age of 10 should ever be left alone with a dog, no matter what the dogs training, and yet again, these dogs sleep in the child’s bedrooms, meaning they are not only alone with the child, they also believe that they are in charge of that child, and with no one to supervise who knows what will happen. Any parent who ties their child to a dog, is dusturbed, and child protection should be investigating as it is child abuse in the extreme, to expect a dog to do what a parent should do.
I fully support and know that children of all sorts can gain an immense amount from dogs, and animals of all sorts, and children with disabilities of all sorts and autism can gain an immense amount from a well trained pet, who can be trained to assist in the home, but since they cannot control the dog, and it is cruel and inhumane to tie a child and dog together, for both the child and the dog, then they are not an never will be assistance dogs. Who would spend $30,000 plus on a dog who is by law just a pet is beyond most people’s comprehension. It is totally the fault of the program that such problems existed in bringing these dogs to you, and that in itself should be ringing bells in your ears.
Sloans mum in another article stated that the purpose of the dog was for her son to able to go places unsupervised, and yet the children are not trained in how to use the dogs, and the parents themselves state as is well known that the parents are the certified handlers. How can the child go somewhere alone with the dog if the parents are the certified handlers?
It’s a good questions; it ought also to be kept in mind the children under discussion here are autistic.
bj2circeleb
I don’t want to continue this in such a negative light. While I agree with some of what you have written I want to clarify some points for you and other readers about my family, I can’t speak for the other 2 here in NZ or others in the states.
Yes, we have pictures on our website of children tethered. We asked permission to use pictures from 4 Paws Ohio for our website when we started fund raising. They are not our children. I don’t know much about tethering and don’t have an opinion as my child is not being tethered. My child does not run away, he will hold his own lead which connects to the harness, the adult certified handler will be controling the dog. My child is not taking his dog to school either as I mentioned he is HFA and if he does need his dog for a school trip to help with anxiety, my husband or I would be there as the handlers, we don’t expect the school or a teacher aide to take that role. When I made the comment in the interviews that I did about my son being able to walk to the shops without myself with him I was looking to the future when he is a young adult and of course he would then need to be the certified handler. We are not about breaking laws or using his diagnosis to push our way into places we shouldn’t be.
Another statement you made was that 4 paws Ohio said it would take them 6 weeks to get the certification to Qantas, this is incorrect, they had it on them, and presented itas the three trainers were the certified handlers being guardians of the service, which met the policy requirement. Qantas told them it would take them 6 weeks to process the request.
Please, if you have personal issues with 4 Paws Ohio, Karen Shirk, or Autism Assistance dogs, don’t let it get in the way of the real issue. I am grateful this site posted the story just to raise awareness of what could go wrong. Not to slang others.
We really just want to get on with our lives and continue on our journey of ensuring our son has a quality life and access to his community, be it by dog instead of his own car, who does it hurt?
Please see the positive as well. I certainly don’t want to be on the receiving end of your angry posts.
Kind regards
Sonya
I was initally pleased by your response, but it is also really the opposite of what your own website states. On it you specifically state that your son will be tethered and you are advocating the benefits of it all over your website.
I also wonder whether you have ever considered the needs of the dog in such situations. This is one woman’s experience of seeing such a dog,
http://servicedogcentral.org/content/node/283
and all the others who have seen tethered dogs report similar things. Even if the dogs are helping the child or parent, do we have a right to create a situation of animal cruelty for them?
I am not trying to be angry but to educate the wider community about what I see are the issues of such dogs and ones which all tether advocates continue to refuse to answer. If this practice is so great and so humane, etc, etc then why will no one anywhere in the world who advocates such a practice answer my questions. I am told that I need to be open minded, but how can I be if no one will answer my questions to allow me to see things in another light. I also feel that it is important for parents considering such things to see the full story and all the issues involved which the tether community simply will not acknowledge. Guide dog programs throughout the world always talk to people in detail about the negatives associated with having a guide dog, and yet tether advocates seem to claim there are no negatives and from my and other peoeple’s opinons and experiences we see things very very differently. All assistance dogs have negatives associated with them and yet people connected to the tether community continue to state otherwise. One would think that these dogs have many more negatives associated with them than most other types of assistance dogs.
“I am not trying to be angry but to educate the wider community about what I see are the issues of such dogs and ones which all tether advocates continue to refuse to answer.”
To reclarify, the webpage was created 2+ years ago when our children were 2+ years younger. The quotes you see in my story ‘ ” are taken from the 4 Paws Ohio site. If you really read my story you will see what I really said ..”He will be tethered or co-lead the dog” I had no idea at the time what the law was around child handlers, we envisioned him co leading as he wasn’t a runner. After clarification with Ohio, he is indeed co-leading.
Let me reassure you, and again I can only speak for myself, I have some background with animals being a farmers daughter, involved in horse training; I am aware of animal psychology to some degree, I am in no way claiming to be an expert. However like everything I do for my son I researched and spoke to people in the field until I was comfortable that I was making a good decision for my son. I am also able to use common sense, we don’t expect our dog to babysit, common sense states dogs are pack animals at heart, I agree no amount of training will change that.. therefore we don’t leave our child unsupervised, not only because of age but because at the end of the day he has Autism which can be just as unpredicatable as dogs.
We had very thorough sessions during training on understanding our dogs and their origin. How a pack works etc. Our dogs are not trained to think they are above our children in pack order, quiet the opposite. Our son feeds and waters, brushes and gives instructions to Woogie, he also provides the best treats and plays the funnest games, so Woogie looks to Sloan as her leader. We supervise at all times. If Sloan is having a meltdown and kicking and screaming, Woogie is not expected to get in there and get hurt. If he is building up to one and we see the tell tale signs like (in our sons case) hand flapping, speaking fast or nail biting) we, (my husband and I) can direct Woogie, to either nuzzle or high five to distract Sloan, in our recent experience this led to Sloan patting Woogie and deciding to play ball, meltdown avoided. Now keep in mind he is high functioning, and very verbal; so I can only speak for my family.
We went through a very robust application process before being accepted for this dog, there is no way we would have received her if we thought for one instant she would replace us and take responsibility for our son.
We have signed contracts stating how we will conduct ourselves in public, how we will treat our dog, how we will respect shop owners and the laws. 4 Paws was not about to turn us loose on the public, they in no way advocate confrontration and assuming we the clients have the right to be wherever we want because of our childs disability, quiet the opposite!
We (4 Paws NZ 3) have been working for the past two years to have our dogs recognised under public access laws in NZ, no one assumed they would arrive and we could go wherever we wanted. We also spent two years talking to the likes of Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health etc about these specific dogs.
I hope this clarifies even more about myself, my son, the dogs wellbeing, the fact that we won’t be tethering, 4 Paws Ohio selection process, our resonsibilities to them as an organisation, our background work within NZ with regards to the public access laws, school access, etc.
Sonya
I would like to list all of the possible negatives of having a service dog for a young autistic child. I am an autistic teenager myself and I am capable of taking responsibility for a dog and doing my own research. I will be getting a service dog (hopefully) about a year or so before I turn 18. Some of these will have been covered. So, here is my list:
The child cannot control the dog and therefore the dog is a danger to the child. There have been reports of autism service dogs dragging children or otherwise hurting them.
The purpose of a service dog is to give a child greater independence. Do you want your young child to be independent of you? I thought that people were supposed to start striving for independence in their teens, and not be fully independent until later. Your situation is set up to give you independence, not the person with the disability. This is wrong and in the US, it may possibly be unlawful (not sure about NZ) though I have not read of any official rulings.
Dogs need constant training and leadership. In many ways a dog is like a 3 year old child just learning about the world. Would you trust a 3 year old with your child’s safety?
What about the cost? Most service dogs cost 5,000 dollars or less. 4paws dogs and those of other autism assistance dog groups cost considerably more for a dog that is trained in less. I think that it is one big scam. That money could be spent on services and caretakers to further aid the child in becoming more independent.
And an organization specific list:
Karen Shirk attacks autistic adults and teens on the internet while refusing to listen to them, often driving up their anxiety. I have written records of this. I have been her victim as have some of my friends.
Dogs from 4paws are trained as tether dogs mainly. And from what I have heard, the training is not as solid as it should be.
Again, 4paws failed follow the law. It is more important to do things right and maintain an image that will help fellow people with disabilities and their canine partners that to speed ahead. I know this.
Thanks for reading my list. I think that service dogs for children that cannot handle dogs are a bad idea. The handler must be mature and ready to take on responsibility. The handler should also have some degree of independence (not full though, because then they may not be considered ‘disabled’ and that is an entirely different issue) in order to take proper care of the dog. I don’t care if you take care of the dog. It will not help your child in the long run. Services will help, and when your child is ready for the responsibility, a service dog may be considered.
I do support, however skilled companion dogs for autistic children. These dogs have obedience down but are not task trained, or if they are, they do not go out in public. These dogs are more accepting of behaviors that would scare most dogs and very loving. These dogs do not go in public and instead work out of the home. Many programs offer skilled companion dogs that are perfectly good dogs that just have a minor physical problem or fear that may impair their ability to work in public.
I beg of you, please consider all of your options first. What you do has an impact on the greater disability community, not just your family. And it certainly has a large impact on the future of your child. Remember; think, research, and ask everyone. By ask everyone, I mean talk to people with different views than you. They may have a good point or two to make.
“The handler must be mature and ready to take on responsibility”…the handler’s are the parents. Please read above posts. We the parents are trained to be the handlers. I am sorry you have issues with 4 Paws, but you see Autism on a different level because you must be high functioning. Meet my son & you will be introduced to a child who needs his parents to be his voice!
It has been interesting reading following the thoughts and feelings of a variety of people in regards to children, autism, tethering and dogs. It seems that not all agencies, all dogs and all children are suitable providers or candidates for receiving a service dog - is that a surprise?
However my research has led me to believe that the benefits for having dogs in these roles is also supported, advocated for and sought after and that there are proffessionals with expertise in dog behaviour and disability alike working with the best intentions to achieve good practice and great outcomes.
It is my understanding that currently Assistance Dogs International is overviewing training, practises and methods so that ‘accreditation’ of schools can take place in the same way that occurs for Guide Dog Schools accredited by the International Guide Dog Federation. I believe that this is a good move and will go a long way towards seeing the best schools and their applicants thrive. I envisage that the criteria that is put in place and required to maintain accreditation of each school will eliminate many of the concerns that have been mentioned here - both in regards to certification, to standards of training and follow up and to safe practice for dog, child and family alike.
I fully support the families that struggle for understanding, and I fully support the community that is challenged with trying to make sense of what they hear and see. Finally I appreciate man’s best friend in striving to meet our growing expectations about what that role entails both within the disability sector and within the general population of our increasingly disfunctional society.
I do question some of the statements that have been made without knowing the source of expertise on which these judgements have been based.
In days gone by there were many that doubted the ethics and/or abilities of dogs that assisted the blind…for a journey to reach its destination there must first be a beginning!
Julie - there’s a big difference in doubting the abilities of a dog to perform a specific task, and having first-hand encounters with a service dog company that make you doubt their ethics.
Most of what has been reported about service/therapy dogs for autistic children has been extremely positive and this discussion suggests some (if not many) questions that need to be considered.
Yes, what is reported has been positive, but most people do not look beyond those reports to the heart of the matter. I don’t think that the issue is service dogs for autism, but service dogs for children.
I have heard on numerous occassions that the children feed the dog, play the best games, etc, etc with the dog, and yet at the same time the dogs are trained not to listen to what the child says, especially when out in public. How is a dog supposed to understand that at some times you listen to the child and some times you don’t. How are they supposed to comprehend that the person who provides the best things, is also the one I am not allowed to listen to.
And these dogs are specifically trained not to listen to a child. They cannot respond if the child pulls on the tether, if the child wants to cross the road, etc. If the child asks it to sit it is supposed to ignore the child and wait for what the parent wants. Yet, at the same time you are trying to convince the dog that the child is important and all good things in live come from the child. As I said previously dogs are not VCR’s you cannot program them to do one thing and not make mistakes, and they do not have the intelligence to know that if they make a mistake a child could be seriously injured or even killed.
Guide dogs do not make any life and death decisions. The blind person through intensive orientation and mobility training has been trained to use their hearing and any residual sight to judge the flow of traffic. The blind person decides when to cross the road and not the dog. You cannot teach a dog to look both ways and decide when it is safe to cross a road. They are dogs and despite our best hopes and dreams for mans best friend they are not and never will be perfect. The idea of all dogs for adults with disabilities is to alert them to things that requrie their attention. Guide dogs stop at roads, or the peron, knowing where the road is by the feel of the ground would automatically stop and the guide dog basically says what would you like to do now. Hearing dogs alert to sounds and say what would you like to do. Physical assistance dogs say I think you won’t be able to reach that would you like assistance. None of these dogs are putting a persons safety at risk if they make a mistake. A blind person may walk into a treee, but not the road as they know where the road is and as adults they can know the dangers caused by such things. Hearing dogs may not alert to sounds but the person will not be any worse off if they don’t, and physically disabled people may not be able to get something they want or may drop something and not be able to pick it up.
These things are very very different to dogs that are tethered to children. And to assume that a parent will always be there is crazy. In no pictures or video’s I have seen are these dogs connected to leads held by an adult. And to assume that a dog can be allowed in school without a parent to handle the dog is also saying that you expect the dog to know what to do, or the child to control the dog. Teachers even if taught basic commands for the dog, which cannot be demanded of them, cannot be there at all times to know what is going on. What happens in the playground at lunchtime, in specialist classes or when the teacher is sick. Even if the teacher is present if another child is being assisted the teacher cannot be watching the dog. Dogs do break training all the time, even guide and other assistance dogs. To assume that a dog tied to a child will not do so is niave. And if these dogs do break training then what happens to the child. Teachers do not become teachers on the basis of them being required to control a dog, and teacher aids are also not there is control a dog. At an absolute minimum you would need to change the job description of teachers and teacher aids and pay them much more for the requirments of not just knowing about children and how to teach them, but to also know how to control dogs and dog behaivour, training, psychology, etc.
The positive information about these dogs is simply because you do not want to know of anything else. There are plenty of places and respectable ones raising huge concerns about these dogs. I have personally spoken to numerous Veterniary Behaviourists and all have expressed their deep concerns about such dogs and the distorted thinking of the programs who place these dogs. Even if a parent was always holding the lead, people who have witnessed such things in action say that it is incredilby inhumane to the dogs, and the dogs looked really really dejceted and are being yanked in evey direction by both a tether and a parent holding the lead. Is this fair on the dogs. Is it fair to create a situation of blantant animal cruelty to satisfy the needs of parents.
I am constantly told that parents do not expect teachers or teacher aids to control dogs and yet at the same time parents talk to education departments, schools, ministers of education, etc. Why do all these things if you have no need for the dog to attend school, and/or you will not be there to control the dog and you claim that you are the authroised handlers of the dog.
I am well aware of the selection processes of these programs and the training the dogs receive. I am also aware of the accreditation system currently being introduced by Assistance Dogs International. While I do feel that this is a step in the right direction most of these programs, and certainly the one in which this discussion was prompted are not members of such programs. Furthermore the standards of ADI are very very limited, and the Public Access Test is an absolute joke. It does not in any way test the temperament of the dog and this is really the most important thing. Yes, ADI says that all programs should temperament test dogs, but without setting a minimum standard for such a test and asking programs to do so voluntarily is not approprite. Further they allow dogs to sit tests with head collars or other equipment. No dog is going to pull with a head collar on. I do not care if people use head collars to train the dog or in daily life, but no dog should be tested with one on. They give a really false reading of the dogs ability, and in no way assess what might happen if the lead is really dropped and/or the person becomes incpacitated. Therapy Dog organisations of all types will not allow dogs to be tested in anything but a flat buckle collar and they also have rigorous temperament tests. The reality is that basically any dog could pass the current ADI public access test and yet most dogs could not pass therapy dog tests. Further more I do not know of a therapy dog who could not easily pass the ADI public access test, and yet I know very few assistance dogs, even those from well respected programs who could pass the therapy dog tests. Who should have higher standards, pets visiting hospitals with fully functioning adults in charge or those dogs who are given rights to accompany a disabeld person anywhere. Further if dogs for children with autism and are handled by the certifed parents should the dog ever be allowed anywhere without that parent present until that person has also become a certified handler.
Julie if you can enlighten people on how these dogs are so perfect that no child could ever be put in danger, I would love to know. Can you explain how there will never be a situation when a dog may rip a lead out of the parents hand for something more interesting. How can it be that parents will always be there holding a lead. How can parent go to the toilet with a dog and child? Further can you explain why it is expected that these dogs attend school, without anyone there to handle the dogs. How is it that all these programs have pictures all over them of kids tethered to dogs in public places and no adult holding another lead. Do you honestly belive that teachers have a responsibily to control dogs in school. Do you believe that dogs can be trained to such a level that they will never make mistakes. Above all else is it fair to place dogs in the middle of a tug of war between parent and child, when the child pulls to go one way and the parent pulls the other. Is it fair to create what has been described by some as cases of blantant animal cruelty just so parents can be helped.
If I am needing to be enlightened then please help me to do so. I am posting this to raise the concerns that and many other people I know have. I have attempted to contact known program in the world who trains dogs for such things, and none of them will respond to my questions. I just want someone in the world of tethering and of assistance dogs for young children or adults who cannot control dogs for themselves to help me to see why I see these things as issues and you don’t. These are very real issues and concerns and to tell people to just be open is not appropriate. Guide dogs were never just given public access rights. Governmets in all countries went through huge processes to ensure that such dogs would be safe for both the people concerned and the public as a whole. While hearing and service dogs are an extension of those laws, people are no longer willing to be under such scruitiany. They expect rights without providing any evidence. Without any independent evaluation and without any answers to the concerns raised by others. Guide dog programs have always answered all questions and explained in great detail why the concerns of some are not warranted. If these same concerns are not warranted in this case then please explain to me and/or find someone who can as to why my concerns and those of others are baseless.
I do not believe that 4Paws has chosen to seek accreditation with ADI.
For an update on the legal requirements which Qantas is requried by Australian Law to meet.
Australian airlines are regulated by Australian Law and as such Qantas is regulated by the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). They have laws and guidelines in place, which while being required to take the Disability Discriminiation Act into consideration can override that as the safety of the aircraft must come first. They do allow guide and other assistance dogs on board bu only under very stringent criteria. Permission for the dog to be on board, must be granted by CASA, it is not something an individual airline can decide.
They are allowed to have on board dogs from programs which are accredited by the International Guide Dog Federation, or Assistance Dogs International. Very very few programs are accredited by ADI, most programs have one of the two lower forms of membership.
Other programs within Australia can apply and be granted permission for their dogs to be able to access all aircraft, and this is done on an assessment of the program, their standards, testing requriements, qualifications of the trainers, etc. Four assistance dog programs and a hearing dog program have been granted rights under this, and all the guide dog programs in Australia are accredited with the International Guide Dog Federation.
Dogs from other programs and those which are owner trained can be granted permission for the individual dog to be in the cabin, but this must be done via CASA. It is not something an individual airline can do. They will lose the authority to operate in australia if they are found to be in breech of these regulations. In order for other dogs to be considered under this criteria a person must be able to provide evidence of:
Training
Customers must be able to provide details of the training completed by their assistance dog in relation to the following:
Training in a high standard of appropriate behaviour.
Training in real life situations travelling and functioning on an aircraft,bus,train and ferry.
Training not to bark.
Training to toilet on demand and only under instructions from the customer.
Training in being in confined spaces, and
Training not to react to noises, crowds or stressful environments.
In general, individuals must provide a letter and/or other appropriate certification from the professional body, association that provided the training which confirms the following:
Who provided the training in each of the above training elements.
How much training the dog has received in each of the above training elements (eg: 6 weeks or 6 months etc ).
What sort of training the dog has received in each of the above elements.
Confirmation that the dog is competent in all of the above training elements.
Who has assessed and trained the dog, and what are their qualifications, certifications, experience, etc.
Disability
CASA also requires information in relation to your disability and the nature of assistance provided by the assistance dog to yourself.
You will need to provide information from an appropriate source (eg: a treating doctor ) which addresses the following:
What is the precise nature of the disability and what are its effects?
Is the disability temporary or permanent?
What function does the assistance dog perform in relation to your disability - ie in what way does the assistance dog assist the customer in relation to the customer’s disability?
Does the customer’s disability affect the customer’s ability to fly in an aircraft?
If yes, in what way and how does the assistance dog alleviate the effect of the disability during travel on an aircraft?
Is the customer able to fly in an aircraft if the customer is not accompanied by the assistance dog?
Are there any other alternative means of alleviating the disability in relation to flying in an aircraft other than having the assistance dog in the cabin with the customer?
It is these requirments which 4paws would have been required to meet in order to have the dogs travel in the aircraft. They would have had to provide evidence of the individual training which each of the dogs had undertaken and the details of all the training sessions for each dog. This is something which any reputable program or trainer would automatically provide to their new graduates, and they would definatley have it on file. They would also have needed to provide independent evidence of their training credentials. Any training qualifications they have, courses they have attended, professional bodies they are associated with.
This is not a decision in which Qantas was legally allowed to make a decision. It is a decision which rests solely with the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority. If they are planning on placing more dogs in any countries it would be well worth any program making sure they have ADI membership and in particular that they strive for ADI accreditation as this is what many countries in the world are requiring.