Talk:Service animal: Difference between revisions

By /

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sandrapenelope. Peer reviewers: Zgi13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Service Animals” include animals trained for things other than disabled persons, including police dogs (attack, drugs, etc) and horses, Search-And-Rescue animals (including the non-canine varieties), etc. Reflecting the full nature of such animals would greatly improve the article, since, for all intents an purposes, they are considered to have the same rights as the Human counterpart just short of death (and killing a police dog is considered killing a cop in some jurisdictions). 05:49, 14 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.28.105 (talk • contribs)

While I by no means discount the contributions made by Police canines -or- Search and Rescue dogs, this article creates confusion about the original topic. By definition, a “Service Animal” is any animal that is individually trained to assist a person with disabilities. Service Animals do NOT have the “same ‘Rights’ as the human counterpart”. A disabled person accompanied by a service animal has the same civil rights as THEIR human counterparts.— unsigned comment

I have a real problem with lumping police dogs in with service dogs. “Service animal” is legally defined in the U.S. to mean one thing: those that assist the disabled. We in the U.S. have a great deal of difficulty arising from people confusing service dogs with other dogs with jobs. We have people with SAR dogs that think they have the right to take their dogs on planes when the ACAA applies only to service dogs that assist the disabled. I assume the same problem exists in other countries as well except that in most countries other than the U.S., assistance animals are issued ID cards.

I also have an issue with combining “assistance dog” with “service dog.” A service dog is a type of assistance dog. The two terms are not synonymous. A service dog is a kind of assistance dog, but not all assistance dogs are service dogs. Similarly, a Ford is a kind of car, but not all cars are Fords. Internationally the correct term is “assistance animal,” which is subdivided into three categories: guide dogs, hearing dogs, and service dogs. There are historical reasons for this. Only in the U.S. are guide and hearing dogs lumped in under the definition of “service animal.” There have been multiple attempts to correct this error, but the powers that be refuse to step in line with the rest of the world. It is hubris to apply the U.S.’s unique viewpoint to an international topic.

There is a problem with including many different species into the definition. Few countries recognize species other than dogs. Again, this is specific to a U.S. perspective. Additionally, this is expected to change. The U.S. Department of Justice announced last month that it intends to go forward with the proposed rulemaking and that the changes will become official by the end of this year. If they continue as they were last year, this will mean excluding many species, including monkeys and horses.

U.S. courts are already moving to exclude primates without any change in the language of the CFRs. In two cases this year courts have ruled that non-human primates are too inherently dangerous to be service animals. This is in line with the CDC’s position published several years ago. Even Helping Hands, who pioneered monkey helpers has the position that these animals are not intended for use in public and for home use there is no need for a special classification.

I agree this entry needed some serious work, but these drastic changes go way too far and in the wrong direction.
Kirsten07734 (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the proper place for police K9’s and SAR dogs. They already have entries in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_dog
Kirsten07734 (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel that Monkey helper and Assistance dog merit their own pages. Opinions? –Visionholder (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

--- I disagree, in the UK the term assistance dog is used exclusively and we do not use the term service animal. (User:Weirdgeordie) 18:45 27 July 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.137.19 (talk)

The above commenter is correct. The term “service dog” is used almost exclusively in the U.S. while in the rest of the world the general term used is “assistance dog.” This is not the U.S. Wikipedia and it should have an international perspective, applying equally to all parts of the world, if it is to be accurate.Kirsten07734 (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a new user and suggest addressing this issue from a different angle. Considering the varying definitions regarding types of animals and services they provide (due to varying legalities, laws, and policies around the world; for example, it might not make sense to merge Assistance Dog with Monkey Helper, but perhaps a section that acknowledges Unusual Service Animals. Maybe a section dedicated to animals that provide their owner service/assistance although they’re not legally recognized and/or common. The section should be organized in such a way with the intention of providing a Viewer the ability to compare and contrast such laws all over the globe. Maybe it will provide more insight into the concept of Animals capable of providing Services, whether they’re legally recognized or not. WhirlWind29 (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added a section on where the services animals can go which was not really mentioned here. I’m gonna add the information from the Guide Dog section as I’m pretty sure it also applies to service animals. I propose Guide Dog be merged with Service Animal.

Tydoni (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am a new user and would like to share my thoughts on the different rules governing the access of service animals in the United States. In regard to the access of service animals in public places I do believe that better clarification is needed as to what types of service animals are permissible in public places in the United States as per the ADA. Emotional support, therapy, comfort, or companion animals are not considered service animals under the ADA. The terms emotional support, therapy, comfort, or companion are used to describe animals that provide comfort to their owners. Since they have not been trained to perform a job or task, under ADA rules and guidelines they do not qualify as service animals. Nicippol (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Nicippol[reply]

Needs more coverage and a rewrite for flow, but some sources are there. Globalize: the US isn’t the only place in the world. Danger (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses only a few animals and what they are services for but why not list all animals and what they do. For research or just to look up for fun, someone may want to know what are all the animals and what each one may used for. An example that could be used is a dog can be serviced as a seeing eye dog. The article could add each animal and what their service is which would add just that bit more of detail for others to read about or research about. The page itself was very informational but there can always be more that can be added. Brookec92 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Brookec92Brookec92 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a Disability Advocate/Information Consultant it is my personal view that this article should be more specifically divided into subsections.

By way of suggestion: Police dogs, cadaver dogs, tracking dogs and the like are not, in the US, defined as service dogs. They are working dogs, usually defined by their job. “A service animal is a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability.” as defined under Title II and Title III ADA. (http://www.ada.gov//service_animals_2010.htm as revised 3/15/11).

The “rights as their human counterpart” argument is too fine a line and is too confusing to the audience. It’s a matter of accessibility that service dogs have equal rights. “Under the ADA, State and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that serve the public generally must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go.” Except in cases where health and safety is at risk. “…it may be appropriate to exclude a service animal from operating rooms or burn units where the animal’s presence may compromise a sterile environment.”

Guide and hearing dogs are service dogs. That’s like trying to say Fords and Dodges aren’t cars.

With few exceptions, the only service animal recognized under the ADA is a dog. The newest revision of Sept 2011 states in part “…the Department’s revised ADA regulations have a new, separate provision about miniature horses…”

I suggest a TOC box with subsections reflecting the newest changes and how the terminology is broken down on an international level because there are different animals with different jobs under the same definition in other countries. MR2David (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of another perspective, I agree with MR2David. Granted, legally-by definition, Service Animal is currently defined as such: “Service animals are animals that have been trained to perform tasks that assist people with disabilities,” but one cannot deny that “Working Animals,” for example, may not be providing a disabled-individual with a service, but considering how fire rescue dogs are able to locate victims; canine squad might serve as a first line of defense to disorient a violent criminal … in short, no matter how you slice it, these animals are still providing humans with a service. While researching Service Animals, considering that all throughout history, all throughout the world… from the time they dressed up elephants in armor during times of war (an organic tank!); or when animals such as cattle pull manual tractors across a field to prepare soil; horses, donkeys, camels, etc. have been provided humans the service of transportation and continue to do so today; including carrying cargo, etc.

Yes, this may be a philosophical matter, but playing off MR2David’s suggestion, “I suggest a TOC box with subsections reflecting the newest changes and how the terminology is broken down on an international level because there are different animals with different jobs under the same definition in other countries;” to further compliment the section, obtaining references regarding the History of how the industry of Service Animals, Assistance Dog, etc. came about, perhaps providing insight into why only some animals are legally recognized compared to others. Again, we can’t change the legal definition of Service Animal or Assistance dog, but we can acknowledge the varying definitions and disagreements around the world, including why some animals are legally recognized while others are not. WhirlWind29 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people, such as Debbie Leahy, believe that monkeys are not legitimate service animals? If they perform service tasks – more than a dog can do – why are they thought by some not to be service animals? That requires explanation.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because monkeys will bite your face off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver2k (talk • contribs) 06:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dogs can also bite your face off 162.252.146.120 (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also because recently some support animal usage was being abused. For example: http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2018/01/30/woman-denied-emotional-support-peacock-on-united-flight.html 1960Godzilla1960 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To echo Daniypink, primates, unlike dogs, are wild animals and there is only so much human-rearing can do. The only way Helping Hands was able to use them safely is by removing their teeth; even then, many still had problems. Very few individual monkeys were successfully employed; for every cooperative individual, you’d have had several who threw things, acted out, and/or were too stressed out to function. The concept of “helper monkeys” was more of a popular media phenomenon than an actual solution. I think there were only ~30 successful placements in the entire history of the organization. Monkeywire (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that should be in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cool, will add when I dig up a good source Monkeywire (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Latest estimate I could find of total monkey placements was 160 — that was over the course of 34 years (in 2013). Picking a solid estimate is a bit tricky because reps from the org have made different/competing claims about the numbers over the years.
Anyway, I added a bit to the page for now. Thanks for the encouragement, WhatamIdoing. Monkeywire (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I particularly like the description as “an average of about five monkeys per year”, as I think that helps people see how rare it was. It might be appropriate (if someone finds a solid source) to also add a sentence or two some day about the inappropriateness for the monkey (not a domesticated species, isolation from other monkeys, need to remove their teeth…). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They would shock them, too — because monkeys often don’t obey. They may have stopped with the shockers at some point, though, because they got criticized for it. Can you imagine shocking your dog every time they didn’t follow an instruction? Think that would go well?
This whole idea for the scheme was dreamed up by a duo who idolized BF Skinner and assumed they could reward-punishment monkeys into care work. Complete nonsense. Monkeywire (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primates are not domesticated animals and should not live in human homes away from their families. The article mentions that service monkeys were socialized to live in human homes, but this can be quite traumatic an experience for a young primate. Here is a brief overview of why primates should not be pets https://www.lpzoo.org/primates-dont-make-good-pets I am aware that a service animal is not the same as a pet, but I hope this clears up some of the controversy. Daniypink (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The definitions section of this article spends a lot of time discussing the ADA’s 2010 guidance on what types of animals are permissible in places of public accommodation. This information seems too US-specific for the general definitions section, and most of it is included in the US bullet of Access section below. I propose deleting the entire coverage of ADA in the Definitions section.209.40.235.226 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s avoid wikt:cripple, as it is, per wiktionary, “often offensive.” NE Ent 19:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, It should never have been an issue in the first place, let alone edit-warred over, Montanabw(talk) 18:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I’m a new user and would like to provide my insight after interacting with the Article Contents, Talk and History Pages.

• There’s a lot of relative and useful content within the article but after reading through it, the first step is revisiting the Table of Contents. It would benefit from renaming and dividing it up into appropriate sub-sections. For example, Access might be changed to Laws, Policies and Guidelines. Given all the varying definitions throughout the world, all the laws can be organized via geographical location. To provide an example, note how Ford Motor Company organized their Section Three: Operations, into subsections including: North America; Europe; Oceania; East and South East Asia; South and West Asia; South America; and Africa. This will allow a Viewer to quickly navigate to and from such details. In effort to aim for a global perspective, by collecting the laws and organizing them as such…
• will make room for another section acknowledging those Animals whom may not be legally recognized; including cases that are in pursuit to legalize such Unusual Service Animals.
• a section acknowledging the differentiation between animals whom provide a disabled individual with assistance; compared to those animals trained to part of a work force, such as a canine squad; fire rescue unit; etc. Note: carrying cargo; providing transportation; agriculture; etc.
• section concerning the History of how the Service Animal industry came about; etc. including either sub-sections and/or additional sections addressing: How does one obtain a Service Animals? How does a Service Animal become trained/approved/adopted? WhirlWind29 (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 10 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KJSMSU07 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by KJSMSU07 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CrochetCow87 and KJSMSU07, there’s no Wikipedia rule against two different classes/schools working on the same article (but you might check with your instructor to make sure they don’t have any class rules about this).
My only requests are that you:
  • Avoid advocating in favor of service animals. This isn’t a blog post for awareness; it should say things like “There are X service animals in the world” or “Service dogs could contaminate a sterile operating room” rather than “Service animals are very important.”
  • Take a global perspective instead of a US one. For example, some countries allow or require official registration of service animals. The US doesn’t. Some countries allow a taxi driver to refuse to carry a service dog if they’re genuinely allergic to dogs. The US doesn’t. Historically, we have had a problem with people assuming the US rules are the only ones that matter, or the only ones that exist. If you created a section similar to the one on Japan for any country that interested you, I would consider that to be a positive contribution to this article.
Thanks for being interested in this, and good luck! WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, only dogs can legally be service animals. While there seem to be legacy accommodations for miniature horses, wild and exotic animals are prohibited. Is this the case in other industrialized countries as well? Perhaps just this page could be restructured a bit to make it more obvious that service animals = trained dogs, and perhaps other animals could be included under a HISTORY section. (I don’t think monkeys were *ever* legally defined service animals at the federal level. I would need to research further but my understanding is that the ADA defined service animals as formally trained dogs only after people tried to bring random pets into public spaces and claiming they were service animals.) Monkeywire (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t been able to find any. I saw claims that Canada has service cats, but found a source saying that it’s not true (yet). I checked for Israel specifically (thinking there might be religious objections to dogs), and found that they only recognize dogs. There are lists of animals that could be/have occasionally been trained, but not lists of animals that are legally recognized. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version