Most service dog handlers are familiar with “fakespotting”—or the policing of service dog teams by the public—either because we have experienced it ourselves or because it is just such a prevailing part of mainstream public conversations when it comes to service dogs. “Fakespotting” takes many forms, including accusations (“that’s not a real service dog”), “simple” observations about service dog behavior (“the other day I saw a service dog that…”), or insider questions or statements (“you and I both know…”). “Fakespotting” can also refer to policing disabled folks’ access to a variety of accommodations—for example, questioning whether someone is “disabled enough” to “deserve” a particular accommodation—but that is not the focus of this blog post.
In many, if not most, cases, the standards that the public uses to assess the legitimacy of a service dog do not align with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This law gives disabled people the right to access public spaces accompanied by a service dog. According to the ADA, service dogs can be any breed or size and are not required to wear special equipment; this means that you may not be able to identify a service dog based on what they are wearing, that no dog is too big or too small to be a service dog, and that breeds as varied as chihuahuas and Great Danes can partner with humans as service dogs. It is not legally possible for a dog to “not look like a service dog.”
The ADA requirements for service dogs and their handlers are that the dog is trained to perform tasks related to their handlers’ disability, that the dog does not eliminate while working (unless cued by the owner in an appropriate location), and that the dog is under the handler’s control. This means that the handler must be disabled (something that is often not perceptible by the public) and that the dog is trained to perform tasks that support them. Still, the public may not observe the dog perform the tasks, either because they are subtle or because the handler did not experience a need for them during a given outing.
On the ADA website, the text about being “under the handler’s control” focuses extensively on the service dog being tethered to the human, so that they cannot access particular locations without the handler’s consent. The FAQ section highlights that service dogs may bark once—and in fact barking is sometimes a part of a service dog’s task, such as alerting others to a handler who has fainted—but that excessive barking may lead to the removal of a service dog and handler team. Service dogs are allowed anywhere that the public is permitted, unless their presence fundamentally alters the nature of a service or program, or where there are safety concerns, such as at a zoo, in areas where the animals living there are the natural prey of dogs and may become agitated at the presence of a service dog.
Nowhere in the ADA are there requirements, for example, that a service dog not sniff the air when another dog (or person) walks by; that a service dog not shift their position while resting for stretches of time; or that a service dog must be settled in a particular position while their handler sits in a waiting room, all of these reasons that the public has called service dogs “fake.” In other words, service dogs, according to the ADA, are not expected to be robots.
Beyond being an inaccurate enforcement of the legal requirements for service dogs, “fakespotting” often has detrimental impacts on service dogs and their handlers. Teams subjected to “fakespotting” have been denied access to public spaces, experience public spaces as discriminatory, and may choose not to access important services (or to access those services without the support of the service dog) for fear of being inaccurately characterized as “fake.” Because service dogs are an accommodation, the rise of “fakespotting” has made handlers reluctant to enter public spaces with their service dogs.
Our hope is that increased public education about service dogs and the ADA will reduce the prevalence of “fakespotting.” It’s important that the public has realistic expectations of service dogs and their handlers, and understands that even the most well-connected and well-trained teams will have tough days. In the meantime, we encourage the public to offer teams the benefit of the doubt; that is, we encourage the public not to directly address service dog-handler teams in ways that question their legitimacy or offer advice. In situations that seem truly unsafe (e.g., when a dog labeled as a service dog lunges at another dog or person with their teeth bared), we encourage the public to find an employee or other public servant to report the incident to, and to ask that person to manage any confrontation with the handler.
It is important to us, as an organization, that service dogs and their handlers thrive. Part of this is in educating the public, as we’ve said, to mitigate the discrimination that teams face, including “fakespotting.” Part of this involves working with handlers and their dogs to navigate space confidently and build resilience against the stress that inevitably comes with being in unpredictable circumstances. And part of this is working to support dog guardians in setting appropriate expectations for our beloved pets, understanding what stress looks like in dogs, and not putting our dogs in situations where they cannot thrive.
When people do choose to bring untrained dogs into public wearing service dog gear and those dogs react from a place of stress or fear (e.g., lunging, biting), it feels appropriate to be disappointed about how this affects the public, other service dog handlers, or the reputation of the service dog-handler community. It may be that some of those people are overriding a sense of obligation to the public in making this choice. However, it may instead be that the ways in which we narrate dogs—as here to serve our every need, as living their best lives when they go everywhere with us, as not stressed because “their tails are wagging” or their mouth is open in what might appear to be a smile—are all contributing to a situation in which people do not understand what it means for a dog to be happy and calm while working.
Some of the responsibility for cultivating a world in which service dogs and their handlers can thrive—and where fewer service dogs behave maladaptively in response to stress—is to shift how we think about our dogs, toward a model of welfare that involves re-imagining service dogs as partners who deserve handlers who know and respond to subtle stress signals, who don’t ask these partners to do more than they are ready for at any given moment.
About Atlas Assistance Dogs
Atlas Assistance Dogs is a non-profit organization that fundamentally expands access to assistance dogs. We support people with disabilities to train and certify their own service dog using positive, ethical training methods. At Atlas, we believe anyone who would benefit from a qualified assistance dog should be able to have one.
We work with people with a wide range of disabilities who wish to train their own service dog as well as offer a comprehensive Academy for professional trainers wanting to become service dog trainers. For more information about Atlas’ Client Certification program or other training services, please visit www.atlasdog.org or contact info@atlasdog.org.
Author: Amy D. Robertson, Ph.D.
