San Francisco filled with more service animals than ever before

From C.W. Nevius' column in the San Francisco Chronicle:

It is not your imagination. There really are more dogs strolling through public spaces with their owners. Animals are going where they have never gone before.

"In San Francisco, it is just so much more in your face," says Emily Simone, a senior field manager for Guide Dogs for the Blind. "In the '80s and especially in the '90s, I've just seen an explosion. We've become animal obsessed. The East Coast and San Francisco are particular hotbeds for advocacy."

San Francisco has become a city filled with "service animals," meaning the owner has a permit that allows him or her to take their dog, cat, or snake (seriously) into restaurants, libraries, and often even rental properties that don't allow pets. In 2004 the city's Animal Care and Control Department issued 244 permits. In 2008 the number was 500, and interim director Rebecca Katz speculates that 2009 numbers are at least as high.

Unfortunately, the practice of granting service animal permits so generously is undercutting the intent of the law. Permits that allow an animal full access to buses, restaurants and public places should go only to service animals that perform a specific task and it seems too often that's not happening. That needs to change.

A good example of the problem can be seen on Haight Street. Residents complain that many of the street bullies have intimidating dogs, often pit bulls, which they take into restaurants and stores.

"They go into a restaurant, sit down with the dog, and when the owner says he doesn't allow dogs, they show him a service animal tag," says Bill Herndon, who works for the SFPD's Vicious and Dangerous Animals Unit. "The police are called, they see the tag, and that's the end of the discussion."

Actually, Katz says, they don't even need a permit.

"The Americans with Disabilities Act doesn't require the animal to have a tag," she says. Owners just need to say, "This is a service animal."

The ADA legislation, enacted in 1990, is so vague that it has created two classes of service animals. The first is for animals that perform a specific task - Guide Dogs for the Blind, wheelchair assistance, hearing dogs, and animals that can detect medical emergencies, like seizures, and summon help.

The problem is the second classification - emotional support animals. All animals - lizards, chickens and snakes - have been designated service animals because they lend emotional support to the owner. In most cases they have no task-specific training.

"People can't believe there isn't some kind of official licensing or training," Herndon says. "I think the policy is misused and abused."

Technically, there is a licensing process, but it is hardly restrictive. Katz says her office requires a valid license, a local address, a signed affidavit saying the owner needs a service animal, and a letter from a doctor. After that, the permit is issued with no questions asked.

Katz says that in the case of vicious or aggressive behavior, an officer like Herndon can cite the owner, confiscate the dog, and even have the animal put down after a hearing. That's fine, but it leaves enforcement for after the fact. What if the dog just growls? Is that enough to lose the service animal designation?

What's really needed is a change in the ADA legislation. No one is saying there shouldn't be an allowance for emotional support, but it should be a different kind of permit. It is terrific that your hamster makes you feel better, but you shouldn't get to take him on the bus.

Simone says organizations like the Coalition of Assistance Dog Organizations have been lobbying to change the ADA to narrow the definition of a service animal. She thinks federal changes could come as soon as this summer.

Until then, watch your fingers. That service animal on the bus may have no more training than a squirrel. And in this city it might be a squirrel.