One of the first things I noticed when I was a government employee (US Fish & Wildlife Service/Texas A&M System) in the late 70s/early 80s was that bureaucrats want to make easy black-and-white laws in a shades-of-gray world. Apparently, it's just too difficult to accept that every situation is different and that addressing one problem ham-handedly is likely to create another, or a lot more others. Allow me to give you an example:
Something I ran into frequently here in the Houston area was the problem of squirrels invading attics. I love squirrels - most people do - but you do not want a family of them inhabiting and nesting in your attic for the primary reason that they're rodents and, as such, the little buggers chew by necessity, it's how they keep their ever-growing teeth trimmed. They seem to particularly enjoy chewing on wiring, which is abundant in attics with fire being a very real possibility and occurence. The game law in Harris County list squirrels as game animals and therefore they can only be "taken" during a certain period of the year, generally October through January, and only by shooting them. There are no legal exceptions of which I am aware.
Have you noticed the problems here yet? The first, and most obvious, is that if you have squirrels in your attic in March, you're legally shit outa luck until October. And, please note, that firing guns within the city limits is illegal at any time, for good reason on that one considering the danger to all in the area when trying to shoot a small, quickly scurrying squirrel, which leaves a homeowner with only one legal (and that's vey iffy since it is a game animal)option: live-trapping. This is great, except that Harris County is a giant pecan tree grove and squirrels just don't fall for the live-trapping bit (trust me, I tried... and tried... and tried...). One can try to build them out, find their entrance into the attic (something everyone needs to be aware of to prevent such problems in the first place) but if there's already a nest up there, you're just as likely to build them in as out which can create a few problems in itself. There are pretty simple solutions to the problem, but none are legal.
I could name a number of other such similar issues I ran into almost daily (the illegality of quickly dispatching a slow-moving, reeling rabid skunk in someone's back yard with a .22 being one of the most frustrating - I won't discuss the only other alternative I had), but you get the idea.
Now here's another example of such limited black-and-white thinking that is now before the Dept. of Justice (why the DOJ, I can't figure out, but this is the Bush administration) restricting service animals to dogs only. The DOJ's new proposed service animal definition is:
"any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, cannot be service animals."
The problem with this? There are a number of other species of animals now being used in a service capacity that are proven incalculably valuable to persons with disabilities. As Rebecca Skloot tells us in her wonderful science blog, Culture Dish:
When people think of service animals, they think guide dogs for the blind. But today it's monkeys for quadriplegia and agoraphobia, guide miniature horses, a goat for muscular dystrophy, parrots for psychosis and any number of animals for anxiety, including cats, ferrets, pigs, at least one iguana and a duck.
Capuchin Monkey Helpers perform services for the severely physically disabled that dogs cannot do, with their greater physical agility to access places dogs can't get to and then there's that opposable thumb thing that allow them to grasp small items. Guide Miniature Horses for the blind can be superior to Guide Dogs in some cases due to their larger, more stable size and much longer life span.
You can read here for the full explanation of the DOJ reasoning behind this new definition but here's an excerpt:
In the [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking], the Department used the term "common domestic animal" in the service animal definition and defined it to exclude reptiles, rabbits, farm animals (including horses, miniature horses, ponies, pigs, or goats), ferrets, amphibians, and rodents. However, the term "common domestic animal" is difficult to define with precision due to the increase in the number of domesticated species. Also, several state and local laws define a "domestic" animal as an animal that is not wild. As a consequence, the Department has decided to limit title III's coverage of service animals to dogs, which are the most common service animals used by individuals with disabilities.
This definition, on its face, is a bit silly and contradictory since the farm animals listed have been domesticated by definitionfor as long or longer as dogs have been. Ferrets have been domesticated for many hundreds of years both as work animals for rabbit hunting and vermin control as well as loving pets. The arguments against using other species besides dogs can have some validity particularly in public venues, though I suspect it's the nontraditional aspect of having a guide horse or other species used in a service capacity that many people are unused to seeing that alarms more than the reality of it being truly problematic. Education is the answer to this, not outlawing.
I realize that there have been abuses of ADA service animal provisions and accommodations and I agree that regulations that are not currently in place are called for to prevent these abuses so that those who truly require their trained service animals are not discriminated against or unduly inconvenienced. But rather than this fuck-it-we-don't-want-to-deal-with-it blanket rule eliminating from service animals that are highly trained and vital to the quality of lives of many disabled persons, a legitimate certification process is entirely possible and important. For example, an application with a statement from a physician as well as certification from a professional trainer who could meet licensing qualifications and, to go even a step further, a health certification from a veterinarian.
Do we REALLY want to deny severely handicapped people from the invaluable service these amazing animals provide to so enrich their lives?
Monkey Helpers Monkey College