Attach Hum Dev. 2011 Sep;13(5):421-36. doi: 10.1080/14616734.2011.584410.
“Not just a dog”: an attachment perspective on relationships with assistance dogs.
Kwong MJ, Bartholomew K.
Source: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.

Abstract: We explored individuals’ relationships with an assistance dog from an attachment-theory perspective. We used both inductive and deductive thematic methods to analyze semi-structured interviews with 25 participants who had lost an assistance dog to retirement or death. Analyses revealed attachment processes of safe haven, secure base, and separation anxiety. Although attachment dynamics were an important feature of these relationships, caregiving was equally important. When confronted with the loss of their dog, almost all participants experienced intense grief. Most grief responses were consistent with the loss of a caregiving relationship. Findings suggest that grief is a natural response to the loss of a beloved companion who fulfilled fundamental needs for attachment and caregiving.

PMID: 21838644 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] View full text

My first service dog died about 15 months ago. I was intensely sad for about six months and even now, I still have periods where I’ll cry over his loss. I’ve lost a number of animals over my life and even though I loved each one of them, the grief I felt over losing him didn’t compare to the others.

Has anyone else lost a service dog, either through retirement or death? Please feel free to share your experiences.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

While reading through the points below, try to be as honest with yourself about each category as you can be. Your decision affects you, the dog and others in your household so please choose wisely.

A Service Dog is not a cure!

A service dog will not cure your disability, nor will it stop it from advancing, if you have a progressive illness. Don’t create bigger expectations than a dog can fill; it’s not fair to you or the dog. A service dog’s job is to perform tasks and as long as you keep your expectation to those tasks, you have a good chance of having your expectations met.

Do you know what your expectations are? One way to determine them is to write down what you think your life will be like with a service dog. Next, translate your imaginings into tasks a dog can do. If you’re not sure how to translate it, start researching dog training and the tasks service dogs perform. Here are several books to help you get started:

• The Power of Positive Dog Training by Pat Miller
• The Culture Clash: A Revolutionary New Way to Understand the Relationship Between Humans and Domestic Dogs by Jean Donaldson
• Excel-Erated Learning: Explaining in Plain English How Dogs Learn and How Best to Teach Them by Pamela J. Reid
• Control Unleashed: Creating a Focused and Confident Dog by Leslie McDevitt
• How Dogs Learn by Joh S. Bailey, Ph.D.
• The Other End of the Leash by Patricia McConnell, Ph.D.
• Dog Sense: How the New Science of Dog Behavior Can Make You a Better Friend to Your Pet by John Bradshaw
• On Talking Terms with Dogs: Calming Signals by Turd Rugass
• How to Behave so Your Dog Behaves by Sophia Yin, DVM
• Teamwork I & II: A Dog Training Manual for People with Disabilities by Stewart Nordensson & Lydia Kelley
• 101 Dog Tricks: Step by Step Activities to Engage, Challenge, and Bond with Your Dog by Kyra Sundance

Another place to research service dog tasks is IAADP’s website: Traditional Assistance Dog Tasks for guide, hearing and mobility work and Service Dog Tasks for Psychiatric Disabilities for work related to panic disorder, PTSD and depression.

How’s Your Health?

Many people think that you have to be severely disabled to benefit from a service dog but this is not the case. In fact, how disabled you are as well as your overall health could make or break whether working with a service dog is a choice for you at all. If you expect to be in assisted living within the next few years, it may not be a feasible choice. Remember that you will be completely responsible for the care of the dog. It’s wonderful if family and friends offer to help but they might not always be able to come through, if at all, so you need to make sure that you are able to.

Can you:

• Bathe the dog?
• Brush the dog?
• Exercise the dog?
• Keep the dog up on his training?
• Train the dog new tasks, if need be?
• Clean up after the dog? This includes his daily potty routine as well as any accidents he may have (dogs get sick, too).
• Clean up after the dog’s shedding?

Be honest with yourself about whether you have the stamina or functionality do to all of this. The dog is there to help you but he relies on you for help as well.

Can you afford a dog?

Anyone who’s owned a pet will tell you that one can be expensive. According to an AP-Petside.com poll, dog owners spent an average of $537 on vet bills in 2011: vet bills for animals not facing serious illness were an average of $358 whereas vet bills for animals facing serious illness were an average of $1,092. Approximately 13% of dog owners (one in eight) spent $1000 or more. Pet insurance is available and can help with bills but it also comes at a cost. As medical costs rise, many are unable to afford veterinary care. In households earning $50,000 or less annually, 41% said that felt unable to afford medical care for their pets.

Besides veterinary care, your service dog will need:

• Preventative Medications & Supplements: All dogs need preventative medications for parasites such as heartworms, fleas, ticks and most also benefit from supplements such as vitamins and fish oil. Talk to your vet about what your dog needs for your location as well as his activity level but expect to pay $50-$300 a year, depending upon the size of your service dog. If you join the IAADP ($30/year), you will receive some preventative medications and supplements for free, cutting your price down substantially. This is only offered to handlers of service dogs and not service dogs-in-training.
• Food & Treats: Your dog will need quality food and treats to stay healthy. Depending upon his size, this could cost $20-$60 per month for a total of $240-$720 per year. Not sure which dog food is the best? Whole Dog Journal publishes an annual report on the top dogs foods available. See Whole Dog Journal’s 2011 Canned Dog Food Review and 2011 Dry Dog Food Review for more information (subscription required).
• Beds and/or Crates: The cost of a bed will run from $20 to $150+ annually, depending upon the size and quality of the bed, the number of beds in your household(one for the family room and one for the bedroom) as well as its washability. A better quality bed is likely to need to be replaced less often. Portability is also a plus, so you can use it at home, during training classes or when you’ll be at a place for a long time such as a doctor’s appointment. Some placement organizations require you to have a crate even if you choose to also have a bed so be sure to factor in both. A good quality crate may last an adult dog’s lifetime.
• Leashes, Collars & ID Tags: These can run you from $10-$50, depending upon the quality. If you’re lucky, you’ll be able to get by with the same one for the entire (adult) dog’s life but more than likely, you’ll find yourself needing to purchase at least a new leash every year or two given the amount of use it will get on a daily basis.
• Toys: Toys are important for mental stimulation as well as exercise. You’ll probably spend somewhere between $25 and $150 on toys each year but if you’re like me and have a hard time resisting great toys you see when you shop, it could be much higher. Mentally stimulating toys can run from $5-20+ for ones you build yourself to $25-50 for high quality commercial activity games like those by Nina Ottoson.
• Harnesses, Backpacks & Capes: Not all placement organizations supply harnesses and backpacks but most do supply one cape. The higher quality of a harness and backpack you purchase, the less often it will need to be replaced. Fortunately, places like Ruff Wear offer wholesale prices to service dog handlers (but not to handlers of service dogs-in-training) and other places, such as Bridgeport Equipment offer reasonable prices on rigid handle harnesses. Annual costs will run between $50 and $200, depending upon your dog’s size and the quality of the item purchased.
• Grooming: The cost of grooming will depend upon how much you are able to do yourself. If you are able to bath, wash and cut your own dog’s fur, you’ll save an enormous amount of money. The cost will be on shampoo and/or conditioner and grooming tools such as a brush, comb, nail trimmer, file, various scissors and clipper. For the DIYers, the cost could be as little as $50 a year (plus the one-time fee of tools ranging from $10-$100). For those that need to seek a pet salon’s help, the cost could run you $800 or more a year, depending upon the breed of dog.
• Obedience Classes/Resources: It’s important to keep your service dog’s training up-to-date. This will mean both training for you as well as the dog. For some of you, your training will take the form of a library book but most of you will find one or two a year that you’d like to own. Others will take classes instead of or in addition to reading, making the cost range for this category between $15 and $500 annually.
• Pet Sitters/Boarding: Service dogs can go almost anywhere. For those times when you can’t or it’s not practical to bring your service dog, such as if you have an overnight stay at the hospital or an overnight visit to a family’s or friend’s house whose allergic to dogs, you’ll need the help of a pet sitter or boarding facility. The cost of a pet sitter depends upon the number of times he visits your home each day, whether he spends the night, if you want your service dog to be walked or if your service dog needs medication. Boarding facilities charge similarly. Check both to determine which one is the most cost effective for your situation. Annual cost for this category ranges from $0 to $600, depending upon your dog’s situation and the number of days boarding is needed.
• Emergencies: Just like humans, dogs are affected by chronic illness, accidents and disasters. Because of this, it’s a good idea to set aside money each month towards emergencies since these can range in cost from hundreds to thousands of dollars. Hopefully, you’ll never need to dig into your kitty but if you do, you’ll be able to breathe a sigh of relief knowing that you saved a little each month for such an occurrence.

What does this look like annually? A total cost of somewhere between $768 and $4,362, barring no emergencies. Chances are that you won’t be on either end but somewhere in between. Aim for a minimum budget of $165/month for your service dog until you’ve determined your food and grooming costs. Any extra you don’t spend each month can go into your emergency kitty. If you are working, some of these costs may be able to be recuperated through an annual tax refund, depending upon how much your health costs are in comparison to how much you earn. This is only an option for those whose income is taxable.

This cost increases for those planning to train their own dogs. Don’t let anyone fool you into thinking it’s cheaper than using a placement agency! This will be covered in another post.

Do you have the time to care for a dog?

It takes a lot of time to properly care for a dog. Because your dog will be in public most days, it’s important that he be kept well groomed. Service dogs should be bathed once a week or once every other week, depending upon the breed and what they’ve done that week. In addition, they should be brushed/combed daily to keep shedding down. You should also plan to spend at least 15 minutes 3-4 days a week working on training as well as 20-30 minutes every day exercising and playing with your service dog (physically and/or mentally).

A service dog may enable you to do things more productively but don’t forget to add back the time you need for his care to your schedule. Those few minutes here and there really add up!

Are you a private person and/or are you patient with others?

If you are a private person, a service dog may not be a good choice for you. Working with a service dog will get you noticed. You’ll be stopped and asked questions, sometimes about the dog and other times inappropriately about your disability. Whether you’re good with the public or not, be sure to have a plan for dealing with these situations. Please remember that courteous, respectful answers help educate whereas harsh words only serve to reflect poorly on you as well as all service dog handlers.

In addition to people noticing you, they will pet your service dog without asking, call your service dog over to them and all sorts of other behaviors that interfere with your service dog’s work. While some states have laws to discourage this, the fact is that you cannot control what someone else will do. Because of this, you need to be able to control your dog in all circumstances and again, you should have a plan in place for how to communicate appropriate behavior to those acting inappropriately. Remember that it’s sometimes a child so be sure to have multiple approaches ready.

If this sounds more stressful than you can handle or you don’t think you would be able to curb your anger, a service dog is probably not the right option for you.

Do you or any of the members of your household have a dog allergy or a fear of dogs?

If you or someone you live with is allergic to dogs or has a fear of dogs, a service dog may not be a feasible option for you. In the case of an allergy, medication is available but it is not without risk. A fear of dogs can sometimes successfully be dealt with through medication and psychotherapy but the time and cost involved may not make this a practical option.Both issues should be discussed with the entire household as well as with medical providers to decide if a service dog is the right option for you.

What do the other members of your household think of the idea?

You may be ready to get a service animal but other members of your household may not be so thrilled. Having a dog in the house affects more than you so it’s important that you reach an agreement everyone is comfortable with. If others aren’t as thrilled about having a service dog around as you, find out why. Maybe they’re concerned that they may end up having to take responsibility for the care of the dog or maybe they simply don’t like dogs. Regardless of the reason, open communication is key in this decision. All concerns should be thoroughly discussed before moving forward.

Is a service dog the right choice for you?

As you can see, there’s a lot involved with owning a service dog. It’s the right choice for some and not for others. Keep your expectations, health, finances, time, personality and household in mind when trying to determine if a service dog is the right choice for you.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Assistance Animal

Assistance animal is an umbrella term referring to any type of animal that offers assistance, such as emotional support animals, service animals, search & rescue animals, police dogs, etc. The term assistance dogs is used when referring to dogs that offer assistance.

Therapy Animal

A therapy animal is an animal that is trained to help many individuals but is handled by an unrelated individual. This is different from a service dog, which is trained to work with and be handled by the same individual. A therapy animal may work with individuals who are disabled but this is not a requirement. People often associate dogs and horses with therapy animals but any type of animal can be a therapy animal as long as it has the proper temperament and training.

There are two main categories of therapy animals, each receiving different training:

• Animal-Assisted Activities (AAA): These animals are handled by volunteers and have received training similar to what’s required for the AKC’s Canine Good Citizen (CGC) Test, i.e., training for good public behavior. The type of work these animals do include visiting individuals in nursing homes, hospitals and groups homes as well as participate in reading programs such as R.E.A.D. There are a number of national therapy animal organizations that offer training and insurance coverage including Therapy Dogs International (TDI), Delta Society Pet Partners, Therapy Dogs Incorporated (TD Inc.), The Bright and Beautiful Therapy Dogs, Inc., Paws for Friendship and Love on a Leash.
• Animal-Assisted Therapy (AAT): There animals are handled by professionals in a clinical situation, such as occupational therapy, physical therapy or psychotherapy, and have received specialized training beyond good public manners to help clients perform tasks. For example, they may be trained to stand still while a client combs them, helping a client who has injured their hand, arm or shoulder.

Emotional Support Animals

An emotional support animal is any animal that helps an individual cope with psychiatric issues such as anxiety and depression by its presence. It is not required to receive training. Emotional support animals are covered under the FHAct but not under the ADA, which means that they are allowed in apartments, condos, rental homes, etc., even when there is a no pet policy but they are not permitted public access. Individuals who use emotional support animals do not have to meet the ADA’s definition of disabled. If they do, they are eligible to use psychiatric service animals.

Service Animals

Service animals under the ADA are any dogs that are 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. The disability must meet the definition of disabled under the ADA. The definition has been provided below for your convenience. In certain situations, miniature horses may be permitted to be used instead of dogs but it is important for the individual to check ahead of time if the facility can accommodate the miniature horse. Accommodation is based on the type, size, and weight of the miniature horse, the handler’s control of the miniature horse and whether the miniature horse´s presence compromises safety requirements necessary for the facility’s safe operation.

Some people refer to their service animals as service dogs, assistance dogs and aid dogs. There are likely other terms people use, too. If you are a business owner and are not sure, remember that you may ask the person two questions: 1) Do you have a disability & is this your service dog? and 2) What tasks has your dog been trained to do. The person should be able to name three tasks the dog has been trained to do. Anything that a dog does without training is not considered a tasks. Remember to never ask a person about their disability. This is both rude and illegal.

There are many different types of service animals in use, a number of which are noted below. Because most of these animals are dogs, they are referred to as such. Please remember that miniature horses are also used in certain situations.

• Guide Dogs: Guide dogs are dogs that have been trained to help individuals who have visual impairments by guiding them around obstacles, alerting them to elevation changes and locating items on command.
• Hearing Dogs: Hearing dogs are trained to help individuals who have hearing impairments by alerting to sounds such as the doorbells, oven timers, smoke alarms, baby crying, alarm clock, beeper, car horn, etc.
• Mobility Service Dogs: Mobility service dogs help individuals who have disabilities that affect their mobility such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia. These dogs are trained to retrieve, carry and deposit items. In addition, some are trained to perform bracing tasks.
• Seizure Alert/Seizure Response Animals: Seizure Alert/Seizure Response animals help individuals who suffer from seizures by responding to their needs after a seizure has occurred. They may also alert to on-coming seizures by observing pre-seizure behavioral changes, changes to the individual’s heart rate or through smell. More research is needed to determine if and how these dogs alert to seizures. This does not mean that they do not alert, only that more research is needed. This research would ultimately aid in dog selection as well as training methods. Please see Epilepsy Res. 2011 Dec;97(3):236-42. Epub 2011 Nov 1., Can seizure alert dogs predict seizures? by Brown SW, Goldstein LH for more information (PMID: 22050976).
• Psychiatric Service Animals: Psychiatric service animals are similar to emotional support animals in that they help individuals cope with psychiatric issues but they differ in that they must be dogs, must be individually trained to work or perform tasks that mitigate the psychiatric disability and the individual using the animal must meet the definition of disabled under the ADA. Examples of the tasks these animals perform can be found on IAADP’s website.
• Other: There are many other types of services dogs, too, for example, some alert to changes in blood sugar. The list of possibilities is endless, especially as we learn what these animals are capable of doing.

Definition of Disability

This is taken from § 35.104 Definitions. of the ADA:

Disability means, with respect to an individual, a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment.

1. The phrase physical or mental impairment means—

1. Any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine;
2. Any mental or psychological disorder such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.

2. The phrase physical or mental impairment includes, but is not limited to, such contagious and noncontagious diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental retardation, emotional illness, specific learning disabilities, HIV disease (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic), tuberculosis, drug addiction, and alcoholism.
3. The phrase physical or mental impairment does not include homosexuality or bisexuality.

2. The phrase major life activities means functions such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.
3. The phrase has a record of such an impairment means has a history of, or has been misclassified as having, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
4. The phrase is regarded as having an impairment means—

1. Has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities but that is treated by a public entity as constituting such a limitation;
2. Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities only as a result of the attitudes of others toward such impairment; or
3. Has none of the impairments defined in paragraph (1) of this definition but is treated by a public entity as having such an impairment.

5. The term disability does not include—

1. Transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;
2. Compulsive gambling, kleptomania, or pyromania; or
3. Psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from current illegal use of drugs.

If you are not sure if your disability fits in with this definition, please consult with your medical specialist or an attorney who specializes in disability rights.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

• What is a service animal?
• What isn’t a service animal?
• How can I tell if an animal is a service animal and not just a pet?
• When can a service animal be removed from a public accommodation?
• What modification to a public accommodation’s policies, practices or procedures are permitted and which ones aren’t?

In addition to the discussion below, I hope you will also read the full ADA analysis and and response to public comments regarding changes to service animals in my previous post.

What is a service animal?

Let’s first look at the first part of the definition of “Service animal” as defined in 36.104 Definitions.

Service animal means 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, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the handler´s disability.

Discussion

• Disabilities: I was happy to see that there were so many different types of disabilities listed. They’ve always been covered but enumerating them should help drive home the fact that there are many different types of disabilities that can benefit from service animals, not just sensory disabilities (e.g., visual impairments and hearing impairments). The new disabilities mentioned are psychiatric, intellectual and other mental disabilities. Even though these have always been covered under the ADA, I hope that by calling these out, more service dogs for these types of disabilities will become available. I hope it will also help discourage the continued discrimination again those with invisible disabilities (epilepsy, bipolar disorder, PTSD, fibromyalgia and other forms of arthritis, diabetes, etc.). Remember the old adage that you can’t judge a book by its cover!

• Training: Service animals must receive specialized training or their considered pets. I’ve often been asked what “individually trained” means as well as what constitutes a “task.” I hope my discussions below will help you understand what these mean.
  • Individually Trained: Being individually trained is a very important to the definition of a service animal. To individually train an animal means that it has been trained to exhibit a specific behavior or sets of behaviors upon a cue and that it exhibits the specific behavior or sets of behavior reliably. The cue could be a verbal command or a hand signal or responding to a seizure, panic attack or other medical situation. I’m often asked if their animal exhibits a behavior on its own if it counts and it doesn’t. This is discussed in more detail below under “Work/Tasks.” I can tell you as a service dog handler that training takes a lot of time and commitment. It’s physically demanding work, which is something you should keep in mind if you decide to train your own or even apply for a service dog. The individual training never ends — even after placement. The handler constantly reviews tasks and often adds new ones throughout the animal’s life, especially in situations where the disability is progressive.
  • Work/Tasks: What exactly is a task or work? This is key to understanding which animals are service animals and which ones aren’t. The specific behavior or set of behaviors that the dog exhibits upon cue is what the ADA refers to as “work” or “task.” It’s important to note the task only counts for ADA purposes if it mitigates the disability. I’ve met individuals with disabilities who’ve trained their dog to do tasks that don’t have anything to do with their disability (jump through a hoop, for example) and then call the dog a “service dog.” Now, that’s not to say that an individual whose dog has been trained to mitigate their disability can’t also be trained to do more! You simply can’t list these tasks when asked what tasks the dog has been trained to perform as part of their service work.

    But what about a dog who reacts spontaneously to something? A dog’s untrained behavior, even if it happens to mitigate the disability, is not considered as having been individually trained. For example, if you notice that your dog often acts nervous before the onset of a seizure, a rise in blood sugar, the onset of a panic attack, etc., you can use this behavior to train the dog to nose nudge you, lick you, paw you, etc. The dog would need to perform whatever task he’s been trained to do in this situation reliably and not just occasionally.

  • Under the Handler’s Control: While this is actually covered under section 36.302(c)(4) Animal under handler´s control (below), I thought it best to mention it here since I’m discussing training. It is essential that the service animal be under the handler’s control at all times. This does not mean keeping it on leash or in a harness. The handler should be able to reliably request the service animal to sit, stand, lie down, come, move, leave-it, quiet, etc. on command (verbal cue, hand signal, whistle, etc.). Some individual think that as long as the dog has been trained to do one task to mitigate their disability, it’s enough to call it a service dog and it simply isn’t.
    

    Animal under handler´s control. A service animal shall be under the control of its handler. A service animal shall have a harness, leash, or other tether, unless either the handler is unable because of a disability to use a harness, leash, or other tether, or the use of a harness, leash, or other tether would interfere with the service animal´s safe, effective performance of work or tasks, in which case the service animal must be otherwise under the handler´s control (e.g., voice control, signals, or other effective means).

• Species: The species of the animal has been specified under the new revision and must be one of the following:
  • Dogs: I was also happy to see that a specific species has been specified. This will make it easier for businesses. People have used cats, pigs, monkeys, birds, snakes, wolf-hybrids, etc. Some of these animals can’t be trained, some are health hazards and some aren’t even domesticated. In the case of domestication, I think sometimes people forget there’s a difference between a single animal that’s been tamed and a species or group of animals that have been domesticated.
  • Miniature Horses: The law has allowed for one exception, as noted under 36.302(c)(9): miniature horses. I was glad they listened to the groups that use and train these animals. As noted in the Discussion section, miniature horses are a wonderful alternative to dogs but they’re definitely not for everyone. For example, because they should live outside when not working, they may not be appropriate for people with disabilities that require the animal to be on-call 24-hours a day. In this circumstance, the animal would need to be inside or at least close to the handler all of the time and based on what I’ve read, miniature horses need to spend time outside due to health reasons. Miniature horses also offer an alternative to those individuals who have a cultural and/or religious aversion to using a dog. However, miniature horses cannot be used in all situations per 36.302(c)(9)(ii): Assessment factors. If you use a miniature horse, please be sure to check with the facility before entering to make sure the facility can accommodate the type, size and weight of the miniature horse and that it doesn’t compromise legitimate safety requirements necessary for operation.

What isn’t a service animal?

Next, let’s look at what types of animals do not fall under the definition of “Service animal” as defined in the second part of 36.104 Definitions.

The crime deterrent effects of an animal´s presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.

Discussion

• Guard/Attack Animals and Pets: Unfortunately, people decided to interpret “provide minimal protection,” which used to be in the ADA, to mean that any dog that has been trained to be aggressive is a service dog if it’s paired with an individual with a disability or that any pet dog can be used since some believe that the presence of a dog provides protection. This is not what the ADA intended. They intended it to mean protecting the individual by alerting them to an oncoming seizure, panic attack, rise in blood sugar, etc. I’m very happy it has been removed. It caused confusion and created a loophole for individuals, whether they have a disability or not, to try to bring in their pets. In addition, I don’t believe it is ever appropriate to use an aggressive animal for this type of service work.

• Emotional Support Animals: I know this is a sensitive subject so I want to be clear that individuals who use emotional support animals are not being discriminated against in the revised ADA. Emotional support animals have never been covered under the ADA. Emotional support animals are covered under the Fair Housing Act (FHAct) as a reasonable accommodation in housing, however, and some assumed this meant that they were also covered under the ADA. I believe this is due in part to the fact that HUD uses the term “assistance animal” and many service dog owners refer to their animals as “assistance dogs.” The term “assistance animal” is a broader category term than “service animal” that includes any type of animal that gives assistance to a person or persons. Service animals are one type of assistance animal as are emotional support animals and FHAct covers both. Pretty confusion, eh? One other thing to remember is that FHAct doesn’t require these animals to have any training. As stated above, service animals must be individually trained to work or perform tasks that mitigate the individual’s disability so many of the animals covered under FHAct are not qualified on this basis alone. Receiving emotional support by the mere presence of the animal or the animal’s spontaneous behavior does not qualify as being individually trained or as a task, even if it happens to mitigate the disability.

  It’s truly unfortunate that this has caused so much confusion over the years on the part of both people with disabilities and businesses and I’m glad that the ADA added this to the revision to clarify. I hope that now that the ADA has stated outright that individuals with psychiatric, intellectual and other mental disabilities are eligible to use service dogs, these individuals will consider this option instead since service animals are covered under both the ADA and FHAct.

  For those who are currently using emotional support animals and want to use them for public access, please remember that your animal may be eligible to be trained to be a service animal! Assuming you have a qualifying disability (not everyone who has an animal under FHAct has a disability), assuming your emotional support animal is a dog, assuming your animal has the correct temperament for public work and is in excellent health, then you can to train your animal to do service work for public access! To be clear, these are the same hurdles that people with other disabilities must go through when training their own dogs, too, so you’re not being singled out. I do plan to do a post on owner-trained dogs next so stay tuned! In the meantime, if you’re not sure what tasks your dog can be trained to do to help mitigate these types of disabilities, please see IAADP’s Service Dog Tasks for Psychiatric Disabilities. Please also remember that you are eligible to apply for a service dog from a service dog training organization — some organizations will even test your dog for eligibility and then train it, though these are hard to find. If you decide to apply for a service dog, I highly recommend going through and ADI-member organization as these dogs’ training and care must meet specific standards plus you’re eligible for mediation should a problem ever arise. You can find their list of organizations here. Since there can be a long wait, I highly recommend applying to more than one organization.

  Because this has been such a sensitive subject, I’d also like to reprint the ADA’s analysis and response to public comments regarding emotional support animals below. I hope you will find their analysis and response helpful in understanding their decision. For those who are already familiar with this, please click here to go on to the next section.

  Recognition of psychiatric service animals, but not “emotional support animals.” The definition of “service animal” in the NPRM stated the Department´s longstanding position that emotional support animals are not included in the definition of “service animal.” The proposed text provided that “[a]nimals whose sole function is to provide emotional support, comfort, therapy, companionship, therapeutic benefits, or to promote emotional well-being are not service animals.” 73 FR 34508, 34553 (June 17, 2008).

  Many advocacy organizations expressed concern and disagreed with the exclusion of comfort and emotional support animals. Others have been more specific, stating that individuals with disabilities may need their emotional support animals in order to have equal access. Some commenters noted that individuals with disabilities use animals that have not been trained to perform tasks directly related to their disability. These animals do not qualify as service animals under the ADA. These are emotional support or comfort animals.

  Commenters asserted that excluding categories such as “comfort” and “emotional support” animals recognized by laws such as the FHAct or the ACAA is confusing and burdensome. Other commenters noted that emotional support and comfort animals perform an important function, asserting that animal companionship helps individuals who experience depression resulting from multiple sclerosis.

  Some commenters explained the benefits emotional support animals provide, including emotional support, comfort, therapy, companionship, therapeutic benefits, and the promotion of emotional well-being. They contended that without the presence of an emotional support animal in their lives they would be disadvantaged and unable to participate in society. These commenters were concerned that excluding this category of animals will lead to discrimination against and excessive questioning of individuals with non-visible or non-apparent disabilities. Other commenters expressing opposition to the exclusion of individually trained “comfort” or “emotional support” animals asserted that the ability to soothe or de-escalate and control emotion is “work” that benefits the individual with the disability.

  Many commenters requested that the Department carve out an exception that permits current or former members of the military to use emotional support animals. They asserted that a significant number of service members returning from active combat duty have adjustment difficulties due to combat, sexual assault, or other traumatic experiences while on active duty. Commenters noted that some current or former members of the military service have been prescribed animals for conditions such as PTSD. One commenter stated that service women who were sexually assaulted while in the military use emotional support animals to help them feel safe enough to step outside their homes. The Department recognizes that many current and former members of the military have disabilities as a result of service-related injuries that may require emotional support and that such individuals can benefit from the use of an emotional support animal and could use such animal in their home under the FHAct. However, having carefully weighed the issues, the Department believes that its final rule appropriately addresses the balance of issues and concerns of both the individual with a disability and the public accommodation. The Department also notes that nothing in this part prohibits a public entity from allowing current or former military members or anyone else with disabilities to utilize emotional support animals if it wants to do so.

  Commenters asserted the view that if an animal´s “mere presence” legitimately provides such benefits to an individual with a disability and if those benefits are necessary to provide equal opportunity given the facts of the particular disability, then such an animal should qualify as a “service animal.” Commenters noted that the focus should be on the nature of a person´s disability, the difficulties the disability may impose and whether the requested accommodation would legitimately address those difficulties, not on evaluating the animal involved. The Department understands this approach has benefitted many individuals under the FHAct and analogous State law provisions, where the presence of animals poses fewer health and safety issues and where emotional support animals provide assistance that is unique to residential settings. The Department believes, however, that the presence of such animals is not required in the context of public accommodations, such as restaurants, hospitals, hotels, retail establishments, and assembly areas.

  Under the Department´s previous regulatory framework, some individuals and entities assumed that the requirement that service animals must be individually trained to do work or perform tasks excluded all individuals with mental disabilities from having service animals. Others assumed that any person with a psychiatric condition whose pet provided comfort to them was covered by the 1991 title III regulation. The Department reiterates that psychiatric service animals that are trained to do work or perform a task for individuals whose disability is covered by the ADA are protected by the Department´s present regulatory approach. Psychiatric service animals can be trained to perform a variety of tasks that assist individuals with disabilities to detect the onset of psychiatric episodes and ameliorate their effects. Tasks performed by psychiatric service animals may include reminding the handler to take medicine, providing safety checks or room searches for persons with PTSD, interrupting self-mutilation, and removing disoriented individuals from dangerous situations.

  The difference between an emotional support animal and a psychiatric service animal is the work or tasks that the animal performs. Traditionally, service dogs worked as guides for individuals who were blind or had low vision. Since the original regulation was promulgated, service animals have been trained to assist individuals with many different types of disabilities.

  In the final rule, the Department has retained its position on the exclusion of emotional support animals from the definition of “service animal.” The definition states that “[t]he provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship * * * do[es] not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.” The Department notes, however, that the exclusion of emotional support animals from coverage in the final rule does not mean that individuals with psychiatric or mental disabilities cannot use service animals that meet the regulatory definition. The final rule defines service animal as follows: “Service animal means 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, This language simply clarifies the Department´s longstanding position.

  The Department´s position is based on the fact that the title II and title III regulations govern a wider range of public settings than the housing and transportation settings for which the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the DOT regulations allow emotional support animals or comfort animals. The Department recognizes that there are situations not governed by the title II and title III regulations, particularly in the context of residential settings and transportation, where there may be a legal obligation to permit the use of animals that do not qualify as service animals under the ADA, but whose presence nonetheless provides necessary emotional support to persons with disabilities. Accordingly, other Federal agency regulations, case law, and possibly State or local laws governing those situations may provide appropriately for increased access for animals other than service animals as defined under the ADA. Public officials, housing providers, and others who make decisions relating to animals in residential and transportation settings should consult the Federal, State, and local laws that apply in those areas (e.g., the FHAct regulations of HUD and the ACAA) and not rely on the ADA as a basis for reducing those obligations.

How can I tell if an animal is a service animal and not just a pet?

This is probably the most common question I receive as well as the most common rant I hear from businesses and the public at large. I cannot blame them; it can be difficult to tell, especially since people are willing to lie to get what they want. I wish they’d be willing to take my disability off my hands in the process. Many businesses would let any animal in due to the threat of law suit or media involvement. Even if it’s later proven that the animal was not a service animal (i.e., it was a pet or an emotional support animal), they end up with considerable legal fees and the media rarely reports when they’ve been wrong in such circumstances. Not knowing whom to let in didn’t help the public’s confidence that an animal has been trained. So how can you tell who is cheating? Under 36.302 (c)(6): Inquiries, the ADA specifies what questions a public accommodation may and may not ask a handler to determine this:

Inquiries. A public accommodation shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person´s disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. A public accommodation may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. A public accommodation shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Generally, a public accommodation may not make these inquiries about a service animal when it is readily apparent that an animal is trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability (e.g., the dog is observed guiding an individual who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person´s wheelchair, or providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with an observable mobility disability).

Discussion

Even though a public accommodation should not ask if the animal is a service animal if it’s clear that the animal has been trained to do work or perform tasks but often this doesn’t get passed down to the “greeters” at the door. Instead, they ask everyone entering in an effort to treat everyone the same way. Chances are that they will have no idea that they’re not supposed to do this so instead of informing them, ask to speak to the manager of the store and explain it to them. You’ll have a greater chance of training being changed if you handle it this way then if you handle it by trying to instruct the greeter.

• Is the animal required because of a disability? vs. What is the nature or extent of your disability? The first question limits the information obtained to only what is necessary to determine eligibility whereas the second requires disclosure of confidential medical information that a public accommodation does not have access rights to. In situations where the public accommodation has requested removal of the service animal from its premises and the handler files a complaint, the handler may need to provide this information to the government so they can make a determination. Do people lie? Yes, unfortunately, some do but those that do usually get tripped up on the second question below.

  I have been working with a service dog for 14 years now and I have been asked many times if my dog is required for a disability. I always thank them when I’m asked politely because I do appreciate the fact that businesses check and that I am treated respectfully. There have been occasions where I have been asked the nature of my disability and I calmly let them know that they may not ask that. These days, most businesses know better than to ask this but even when they don’t, most stop as soon as you inform them that they cannot ask this. I generally let them know that they can ask what the dog has been trained to do but I have yet to have a business actually ask.

• What work or tasks has the animal been trained to do? vs. May I see documentation/certification/licensing to prove that this is a service dog? Most people who do not have a legitimate service animal are unable to answer this question at all or with appropriate tasks. It’s not a perfect solution by a long shot but it’s a start and better than nothing. Some individuals with disabilities are not aware that it is legal to ask what tasks the animal has been trained to do and refuse to answer only to find themselves booted out!

  As stated above, I’ve never been asked this question. I have been asked on numerous occasions to prove that the dog is trained and hand over certification papers. Most people are reasonable when you explain that this is not something that they are permitted to ask but that they are permitted to ask what specific tasks the dog has been trained to do to mitigate the disability but some are not. If you get into a situation where you’re asked to leave, the best thing to do is to remain calm. You can try to explain the law or hand out a pamphlet on the law but if the business still insists, calmly leave. Once you’ve left, immediately call the ADA Hotline or your state’s human rights agency if possible. If not, start documenting what happened before you forget. As soon as you can, call one or both agencies. Most of the time, this can be handled through education but often that education needs to come from an organization with authority. It doesn’t hurt that these organizations can fine the businesses. It never helps a situation to lose your temper, even if they do themselves. It’s hard but try to take the high road. Besides, if a business is really acting repugnantly, do you want to spend money there?

  I would like to add that I’m one of the few service animal handlers who would like to see certification added to the law. It’s not unusual for other types of medical equipment to need to comply with industry agreed-upon standards to be covered under insurance and I see no reason why service animals should be any different, especially if we ever want to see them covered by insurance. It would be no small feat to get this setup. An agency such as Assistance Dogs International (ADI) or the International Association of Assistance Dog Partners (IAADP), or even a newly created agency would to agree to coordinate this effort. Some of this work has already been completed, however. Both ADI and IAADP require service dogs to pass the same Public Access Test (PAT). ADI-member organizations must also follow certain training standards, which are similar to the standards the IAADP puts forth for members training their own dogs. A written or oral test may need to be created in addition to the PAT to ensure that the handler is familiar with federal and their own state’s laws. The evaluators of the tests could be trainers certified by one of the national training organizations (such as CCPDT, NADOI, NK9DTA to name a few) who have taken a short on-line or home study course (for CEU credit) covering service dogs and the law. They could then apply to become evaluators similarly to the way AKC handles applications for CGC evaluators.

  There is no question that this would be a considerable amount of work for an agency to take on. They would at a minimum have the following tasks on their table:

  • Create a test on service dogs and the law for evaluators, including method of delivery and testing
  • Track the status of evaluators and send out reminders for recertification
  • Create an oral/written test on federal law as well as possibly the handler’s state laws regarding service animals.
  • Evaluate each dog’s training logs to ensure that the dog has received at least 120 hours of training over no less than a six month period of time
  • Track team test scores as well as handlers’ test scores on the service dog laws
  • Create certification and/or ID cards once the service dog team has passed the PAT, the handler has passed the service dog laws test and the dog has received the correct amount of training
  • Create temporary certification that the evaluator can hand out until the official certification arrives so the team can have public access during the six-to-eight week wait
  • Track the status of service animal teams and send out reminders for recertification

  This all costs money, too. Certainly, they could approach it the same way as AKC where the evaluator pays a small fee, the handler pays a small fee to the evaluator and another small fee to the certifying organization but people will complain about costs no matter how small the fee is. People will also complain that it will take too long for an individual to use the service dog officially. However, proper training takes time whether there’s a certification process or not. By issuing temporary certification while the team is awaiting official certification, they can access public accommodations immediately. There is also a greater chance that insurance companies will be willing to help pay these fees as well as training expenses for owner-trained dog or the cost of an organization-trained dog if standards and certification are in place. It will also help put businesses and the public’s mind at rest. While there are drawbacks to this, it seems to me that there are more plusses. However, this is just my opinion and as I stated, I’m in the minority on this point within the service dog community. I realize that my opinion may bring a lot of fire from the community and I hope they will treat me with the same respect that I treat their views and opinions. Discussion on this topic is a good thing but no one wins in a flame war.

  Some may be wondering why I am not suggesting that the CGC be used. I have a lot of respect for the CGC and I hope that anyone with a service dog, whether from an organization or owner-trained, takes their dog through the test periodically. However, the CGC is conducted in a contained environment whereas the PAT takes place in a store, hospital or some other public accommodation. Having the evaluator test the dog in the environment the dog will be working gives a greater degree of confidence that the dog is able to handle the surprising things that can happen in public.

When can a service animal be removed from a public accommodation?

The law does allow service animals to be removed under specific circumstances as defined in 36.302(c)(2) and (3) noted below. However, even when the animal has been asked to leave, the public accommodation must give the handler the opportunity to obtain goods and services without the animal present.

Exceptions. A public accommodation may ask an individual with a disability to remove a service animal from the premises if:

1. The animal is out of control and the animal´s handler does not take effective action to control it; or
2. The animal is not housebroken.

Discussion

I whole-heartedly agree with each of these points. An animal that is out of control or isn’t housebroken shouldn’t be used in public. However, I also agree that it’s important to look at the situation, including the environment, to determine if the animal is out of control or not or isn’t housebroken.

• Out of control: Being out of control doesn’t mean that the animal barked once or twice. First, some animals are trained to bark when alerting to a medical condition. Second, animals sometimes lose their manners, especially when they are being taunted, teased, pinched, etc. by members of the public. Service animals are trained to handle this but sometimes misbehavior in these circumstances is not unwarranted. As long as the handler is able get the animal under control in a reasonable amount of time, it’s not grounds for excluding the animal. If the handler claims that the animal has been provoked or the public accommodation sees the animal being provoked, the public accommodation should take measures to prevent further incitement.

  If the animal’s behavior is a direct threat to the public (i.e., constant barking, nipping at individuals, etc.) the animal may be excluded. This is situation dependent. For example, if an animal starts barking during a live performance while a crowd is cheering, this barking is generally considered tolerable. If the animal starts howling during the middle of an opera performance, it’s not.

• Housebroken: The service animal must be potty-trained. The ADA does recognize that animals get sick, too, and that they occasionally have accidents. In these circumstances, it is the handler’s responsibility to clean up after the animal. If the animal repeatedly eliminates in the public accommodation, however, they may exclude the animal under this section.

What modification to a public accommodation’s policies, practices or procedures are permitted and which ones aren’t?

There are three sections I’d like to mention here though these aren’t the only situations where a public accommodation may be asked to make a modification to policies, practices or procedures: 36.302(c)(5) Care or supervision, (7) Access to areas of a public accommodation and (8) Surcharges:

Care or supervision. A public accommodation is not responsible for the care or supervision of a service animal.

Access to areas of a public accommodation. Individuals with disabilities shall be permitted to be accompanied by their service animals in all areas of a place of public accommodation where members of the public, program participants, clients, customers, patrons, or invitees, as relevant, are allowed to go.

Surcharges. A public accommodation shall not ask or require an individual with a disability to pay a surcharge, even if people accompanied by pets are required to pay fees, or to comply with other requirements generally not applicable to people without pets. If a public accommodation normally charges individuals for the damage they cause, an individual with a disability may be charged for damage caused by his or her service animal.

Discussion

• Supervision: The handler is responsible for the service animal at all times. The public accommodation is under no obligation to watch the animal. This makes perfect sense but my experience has been that there are some situations where the public accommodation offers to watch the animal, for example, when you’re getting x-rays. Not all will, however, so if you use a service animal, remember that you need to consider what you plan to do with your animal if you are going in for x-rays, CT scans, MRIs, etc. This includes the dentist’s office. I strongly recommend asking the service if they are willing to watch the animal while you are being irradiated.

  If you are unable to handle your animal or make arrangements in situations where your animal won’t be present, a service animal may not be the right option for you at least right now. I’ve seen this issue come up in school situations where the parents were under the mistaken belief that the school was responsible for supervising the dog, taking it out to potty, handling it, etc. and this simply isn’t the case. There are some adults for reasons due to their disability or related diagnosis are not able to handle these situations, too. A service animal is a choice but it’s not always the right choice for the given handler.

• Access: Some people think that service dogs are allowed everywhere and this isn’t true. The law does not apply to private organizations or private citizens’ homes. For example, an individual would need to get permission to bring their service animal into a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc., unless the building was open to the entire public for the event (such as a concert). Your friends, family, neighbors, etc. are also under no obligation to let your animal into their homes. It’s always best to find out if the private organization or citizen will permit the animal on their premises instead of hoping for the best. This can cause hurt feelings all around in some situations. If you still want to go, you’ll need to make arrangements for your animal ahead of time. Of course, some would choose to find a new church, synagogue, mosque, etc. or friends! Much to some individuals’ dismay, you can’t choose your family and it’s not always easy to choose your neighbors.

  On the other hand, service animals are allowed in most places of public accommodation but not quite all. For example, they aren’t permitted in a “clean room” such as an operating room or a room where microchips are made. A service animal may be denied access to non-public areas in a hospital per Pool v. Riverside Health Services, Inc. If you are denied access somewhere you believe you should have access to, see How can I tell if an animal is a service animal and not just a pet? above on how to proceed.

• Surcharges: Part of this accommodation is not paying surcharges, even if owners of pets have to pay. Remember that the service animal is considered medical equipment. A person in a wheelchair wouldn’t need to pay for a surcharge any more than a handler of a service animal would. However, if the animal (or wheelchair) causes damage, you may be liable. Like Supervision, this is partially about responsible ownership.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

• Which species can work as service animals?
• What types of disabilities do service animals help?
• What types of tasks should a service animal be trained to perform?
• What behavior is appropriate and inappropriate for a service animal?
• What questions area businesses permitted to ask a person with a disability who works with a service animal?
• Are emotional support or comfort animals permitted in public settings under the ADA

as well as many other questions.

To help everyone understand the changes, I’ve included the ADA’s section-by-section analysis and response to public comments. I plan to post my own comments about the changes in the coming weeks. Overall, I was happy with what was implemented but there are still areas where I wish they would have been more stringent.

I urge anyone who works with a service animal, has a family member or friend who works with a service animal, is training a service animal or runs a business to take the time to read both the changes in the regulations and the commentary in their entirety.

For complete information on these revised regulations, see ADA Regs 2010. All sections regarding services animals from the ADA Regs 2010 follow.

36.104 Definitions.

* * * * *

Service animal means 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, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the handler´s disability. Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to, assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, providing non-violent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a seizure, alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors. The crime deterrent effects of an animal´s presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.

§ 36.302 Modifications in policies, practices, or procedures.

(c) * * *

(2) Exceptions. A public accommodation may ask an individual with a disability to remove a service animal from the premises if:

(i) The animal is out of control and the animal´s handler does not take effective action to control it; or

(ii) The animal is not housebroken.

(3) If an animal is properly excluded. If a public accommodation properly excludes a service animal under § 36.302(c)(2), it shall give the individual with a disability the opportunity to obtain goods, services, and accommodations without having the service animal on the premises.

(4) Animal under handler´s control. A service animal shall be under the control of its handler. A service animal shall have a harness, leash, or other tether, unless either the handler is unable because of a disability to use a harness, leash, or other tether, or the use of a harness, leash, or other tether would interfere with the service animal´s safe, effective performance of work or tasks, in which case the service animal must be otherwise under the handler´s control (e.g., voice control, signals, or other effective means).

(5) Care or supervision. A public accommodation is not responsible for the care or supervision of a service animal.

(6) Inquiries. A public accommodation shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person´s disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. A public accommodation may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. A public accommodation shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Generally, a public accommodation may not make these inquiries about a service animal when it is readily apparent that an animal is trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability (e.g., the dog is observed guiding an individual who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person´s wheelchair, or providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with an observable mobility disability).

(7) Access to areas of a public accommodation. Individuals with disabilities shall be permitted to be accompanied by their service animals in all areas of a place of public accommodation where members of the public, program participants, clients, customers, patrons, or invitees, as relevant, are allowed to go.

(8) Surcharges. A public accommodation shall not ask or require an individual with a disability to pay a surcharge, even if people accompanied by pets are required to pay fees, or to comply with other requirements generally not applicable to people without pets. If a public accommodation normally charges individuals for the damage they cause, an individual with a disability may be charged for damage caused by his or her service animal.

(9) Miniature horses. (i) A public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.

(ii) Assessment factors. In determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility, a public accommodation shall consider–

(A) The type, size, and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility can
accommodate these features;

(B) Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse;

(C) Whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and

(D) Whether the miniature horse´s presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.

(iii)Other requirements. Sections 36.302(c)(3) through (c)(8), which apply to service animals, shall also apply to miniature horses.

This section provides a detailed description of the Department´s changes to the title III regulation, the reasoning behind those changes, and responses to public comments received on these topics. The Section-by-Section Analysis follows the order of the title III regulation itself, except that if the Department has not changed a regulatory section, the unchanged section has not been mentioned.

[Only sections regarding service animals are copied below.]

“Service Animal”

Section 36.104 of the 1991 title III regulation defines a “service animal” as “any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including, but not limited to, guiding individuals with impaired vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, or fetching dropped items.” Section 36.302(c)(1) of the 1991 title III regulation requires that “[g]enerally, a public accommodation shall modify policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability.” Section 36.302(c)(2) of the 1991 title III regulation states that “a public accommodation [is not required] to supervise or care for a service animal.”

The Department has issued guidance and provided technical assistance and publications concerning service animals since the 1991 regulations became effective. In the NPRM, the Department proposed to modify the definition of service animal and asked for public input on several issues related to the service animal provisions of the 1991 title III regulation: whether the Department should clarify the phrase “providing minimal protection” in the definition or remove it; whether there are any circumstances where a service animal “providing minimal protection” would be appropriate or expected; whether certain species should be eliminated from the definition of “service animal,” and, if so, which types of animals should be excluded; whether “common domestic animal” should be part of the definition; and whether a size or weight limitation should be imposed for common domestic animals, even if the animal satisfies the “common domestic animal” part of the NPRM definition.

The Department received extensive comments on these issues, as well as requests to clarify the obligations of public accommodations to accommodate individuals with disabilities who use service animals, and has modified the final rule in response. In the interests of avoiding unnecessary repetition, the Department has elected to discuss the issues raised in the NPRM questions about service animals and the corresponding public comments in the following discussion of the definition of “service animal.”

The Department´s final rule defines “service animal” as “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, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the handler´s disability. Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to, assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, providing non-violent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a seizure, alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors. The crime deterrent effects of an animal´s presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.”

This definition has been designed to clarify a key provision of the ADA. Many covered entities indicated that they are confused regarding their obligations under the ADA with regard to individuals with disabilities who use service animals. Individuals with disabilities who use trained guide or service dogs are concerned that if untrained or unusual animals are termed “service animals,” their own right to use guide or service dogs may become unnecessarily restricted or questioned. Some individuals who are not individuals with disabilities have claimed, whether fraudulently or sincerely (albeit mistakenly), that their animals are service animals covered by the ADA, in order to gain access to hotels, restaurants, and other places of public accommodation. The increasing use of wild, exotic, or unusual species, many of which are untrained, as service animals has also added to the confusion.

Finally, individuals with disabilities who have the legal right under the Fair Housing Act (FHAct) to use certain animals in their homes as a reasonable accommodation to their disabilities have assumed that their animals also qualify under the ADA. This is not necessarily the case, as discussed below.

The Department recognizes the diverse needs and preferences of individuals with disabilities protected under the ADA, and does not wish to unnecessarily impede individual choice. Service animals play an integral role in the lives of many individuals with disabilities, and with the clarification provided by the final rule, individuals with disabilities will continue to be able to use their service animals as they go about their daily activities. The clarification will also help to ensure that the fraudulent or mistaken use of other animals not qualified as service animals under the ADA will be deterred. A more detailed analysis of the elements of the definition and the comments responsive to the service animal provisions of the NPRM follows.

Providing minimal protection. The 1991 title III regulation included language stating that “minimal protection” was a task that could be performed by an individually trained service animal for the benefit of an individual with a disability. In the Department´s “ADA Business Brief on Service Animals” (2002), the Department interpreted the “minimal protection” language within the context of a seizure (i.e., alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure). The Department received many comments in response to the question of whether the “minimal protection” language should be clarified. Many commenters urged the removal of the “minimal protection” language from the service animal definition for two reasons: (1) The phrase can be interpreted to allow any dog that is trained to be aggressive to qualify as a service animal simply by pairing the animal with a person with a disability; and (2) The phrase can be interpreted to allow any untrained pet dog to qualify as a service animal, since many consider the mere presence of a dog to be a crime deterrent, and thus sufficient to meet the minimal protection standard. These commenters argued, and the Department agrees, that these interpretations were not contemplated under the original title III regulation.

While many commenters stated that they believe that the “minimal protection” language should be eliminated, other commenters recommended that the language be clarified, but retained. Commenters favoring clarification of the term suggested that the Department explicitly exclude the function of attack or exclude those animals that are trained solely to be aggressive or protective. Other commenters identified non-violent behavioral tasks that could be construed as minimally protective, such as interrupting self-mutilation, providing safety checks and room searches, reminding the handler to take medications, and protecting the handler from injury resulting from seizures or unconsciousness.

Several commenters noted that the existing direct threat defense, which allows the exclusion of a service animal if the animal exhibits unwarranted or unprovoked violent behavior or poses a direct threat, prevents the use of “attack dogs” as service animals. One commenter noted that the use of a service animal trained to provide “minimal protection” may impede access to care in an emergency, for example, where the first responder is unable or reluctant to approach a person with a disability because the individual´s service animal is in a protective posture suggestive of aggression.

Many organizations and individuals stated that in the general dog training community, “protection” is code for attack or aggression training and should be removed from the definition. Commenters stated that there appears to be a broadly held misconception that aggression-trained animals are appropriate service animals for persons with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). While many individuals with PTSD may benefit by using a service animal, the work or tasks performed appropriately by such an animal would not involve unprovoked aggression but could include actively cuing the handler by nudging or pawing the handler to alert to the onset of an episode and removing the individual from the anxiety-provoking environment.

The Department recognizes that despite its best efforts to provide clarification, the “minimal protection” language appears to have been misinterpreted. While the Department maintains that protection from danger is one of the key functions that service animals perform for the benefit of persons with disabilities, the Department recognizes that an animal individually trained to provide aggressive protection, such as an attack dog, is not appropriately considered a service animal. Therefore, the Department has decided to modify the “minimal protection” language to read “non-violent protection,” thereby excluding so-called “attack dogs” or dogs with traditional “protection training” as service animals. The Department believes that this modification to the service animal definition will eliminate confusion, without restricting unnecessarily the type of work or tasks that service animals may perform. The Department´s modification also clarifies that the crime-deterrent effect of a dog´s presence, by itself, does not qualify as work or tasks for purposes of the service animal definition.

Alerting to intruders. The phrase “alerting to intruders” is related to the issues of minimal protection and the work or tasks an animal may perform to meet the definition of a service animal. In the original 1991 regulatory text, this phrase was intended to identify service animals that alert individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of others. This language has been misinterpreted by some to apply to dogs that are trained specifically to provide aggressive protection, resulting in the assertion that such training qualifies a dog as a service animal under the ADA. The Department reiterates that public accommodations are not required to admit any animal whose use poses a direct threat. In addition, the Department has decided to remove the word “intruders” from the service animal definition and replace it with the phrase “the presence of people or sounds.” The Department believes this clarifies that so-called “attack training” or other aggressive response types of training that cause a dog to provide an aggressive response do not qualify a dog as a service animal under the ADA.

Conversely, if an individual uses a breed of dog that is perceived to be aggressive because of breed reputation, stereotype, or the history or experience the observer may have with other dogs, but the dog is under the control of the individual with a disability and does not exhibit aggressive behavior, the public accommodation cannot exclude the individual or the animal from the place of public accommodation. The animal can only be removed if it engages in the behaviors mentioned in § 36.302(c) (as revised in the final rule) or if the presence of the animal constitutes a fundamental alteration to the nature of the goods, services, facilities, and activities of the place of public accommodation.

“Doing work” or “performing tasks.” The NPRM proposed that the Department maintain the requirement first articulated in the l991 title III regulation that in order to qualify as a service animal, the animal must “perform tasks” or “do work” for the individual with a disability. The phrases “perform tasks” and “do work” describe what an animal must do for the benefit of an individual with a disability in order to qualify as a service animal.

The Department received a number of comments in response to the NPRM proposal urging the removal of the term “do work” from the definition of a service animal. These commenters argued that the Department should emphasize the performance of tasks instead. The Department disagrees. Although the common definition of work includes the performance of tasks, the definition of work is somewhat broader, encompassing activities that do not appear to involve physical action.

One service dog user stated that, in some cases, “critical forms of assistance can´t be construed as physical tasks,” noting that the manifestations of “brain-based disabilities,” such as psychiatric disorders and autism, are as varied as their physical counterparts. The Department agrees with this statement but cautions that unless the animal is individually trained to do something that qualifies as work or a task, the animal is a pet or support animal and does not qualify for coverage as a service animal. A pet or support animal may be able to discern that the handler is in distress, but it is what the animal is trained to do in response to this awareness that distinguishes a service animal from an observant pet or support animal.

The NPRM contained an example of “doing work” that stated “a psychiatric service dog can help some individuals with dissociative identity disorder to remain grounded in time or place.” 73 FR 34508, 34521 (June 17, 2008). Several commenters objected to the use of this example, arguing that grounding was not a “task” and therefore the example inherently contradicted the basic premise that a service animal must perform a task in order to mitigate a disability. Other commenters stated that “grounding” should not be included as an example of “work” because it could lead to some individuals claiming that they should be able to use emotional support animals in public because the dog makes them feel calm or safe. By contrast, one commenter with experience in training service animals explained that grounding is a trained task based upon very specific behavioral indicators that can be observed and measured. These tasks are based upon input from mental health practitioners, dog trainers, and individuals with a history of working with psychiatric service dogs.

It is the Department´s view that an animal that is trained to “ground” a person with a psychiatric disorder does work or performs a task that would qualify it as a service animal as compared to an untrained emotional support animal whose presence affects a person´s disability. It is the fact that the animal is trained to respond to the individual´s needs that distinguishes an animal as a service animal. The process must have two steps: recognition and response. For example, if a service animal senses that a person is about to have a psychiatric episode and it is trained to respond, for example, by nudging, barking, or removing the individual to a safe location until the episode subsides, then the animal has indeed performed a task or done work on behalf of the individual with the disability, as opposed to merely sensing an event.

One commenter suggested defining the term “task,” presumably to improve the understanding of the types of services performed by an animal that would be sufficient to qualify the animal for coverage. The Department believes that the common definition of the word “task” is sufficiently clear and that it is not necessary to add to the definitions section. However, the Department has added examples of other kinds of work or tasks to help illustrate and provide clarity to the definition. After careful evaluation of this issue, the Department has concluded that the phrases “do work” and “perform tasks” have been effective during the past two decades to illustrate the varied services provided by service animals for the benefit of individuals with all types of disabilities. Thus, the Department declines to depart from its longstanding approach at this time.

Species limitations. When the Department originally issued its title III regulation in the early 1990s, the Department did not define the parameters of acceptable animal species. At that time, few anticipated the variety of animals that would be promoted as service animals in the years to come, which ranged from pigs and miniature horses to snakes, iguanas, and parrots. The Department has followed this particular issue closely, keeping current with the many unusual species of animals represented to be service animals. Thus, the Department has decided to refine further this aspect of the service animal definition in the final rule.

The Department received many comments from individuals and organizations recommending species limitations. Several of these commenters asserted that limiting the number of allowable species would help stop erosion of the public´s trust, which has resulted in reduced access for many individuals with disabilities who use trained service animals that adhere to high behavioral standards. Several commenters suggested that other species would be acceptable if those animals could meet nationally recognized behavioral standards for trained service dogs. Other commenters asserted that certain species of animals (e.g., reptiles) cannot be trained to do work or perform tasks, so these animals would not be covered.

In the NPRM, the Department used the term “common domestic animal” in the service animal definition and excluded reptiles, rabbits, farm animals (including horses, miniature horses, ponies, pigs, and goats), ferrets, amphibians, and rodents from the service animal definition. 73 FR 34508, 34553 (June 17, 2008). 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.

The Department is compelled to take into account the practical considerations of certain animals and to contemplate their suitability in a variety of public contexts, such as restaurants, grocery stores, hospitals, and performing arts venues, as well as suitability for urban environments. The Department agrees with commenters´ views that limiting the number and types of species recognized as service animals will provide greater predictability for public accommodations as well as added assurance of access for individuals with disabilities who use dogs as service animals. As a consequence, the Department has decided to limit this rule´s coverage of service animals to dogs, which are the most common service animals used by individuals with disabilities.

Wild animals, monkeys, and other nonhuman primates. Numerous business entities endorsed a narrow definition of acceptable service animal species, and asserted that there are certain animals (e.g., reptiles) that cannot be trained to do work or perform tasks. Other commenters suggested that the Department should identify excluded animals, such as birds and llamas, in the final rule. Although one commenter noted that wild animals bred in captivity should be permitted to be service animals, the Department has decided to make clear that all wild animals, whether born or bred in captivity or in the wild, are eliminated from coverage as service animals. The Department believes that this approach reduces risks to health or safety attendant with wild animals. Some animals, such as certain nonhuman primates, including certain monkeys, pose a direct threat; their behavior can be unpredictably aggressive and violent without notice or provocation. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) issued a position statement advising against the use of monkeys as service animals, stating that “[t]he AVMA does not support the use of nonhuman primates as assistance animals because of animal welfare concerns, and the potential for serious injury and zoonotic [animal to human disease transmission] risks.” AVMA Position Statement, Nonhuman Primates asAssistance Animals (2005), available at www.avma.org/issues/policy/nonhuman_primates.asp (last visited June 24, 2010).

An organization that trains capuchin monkeys to provide in-home services to individuals with paraplegia and quadriplegia was in substantial agreement with the AVMA´s views but requested a limited recognition in the service animal definition for the capuchin monkeys it trains to provide assistance for persons with disabilities. The organization commented that its trained capuchin monkeys undergo scrupulous veterinary examinations to ensure that the animals pose no health risks, and are used by individuals with disabilities exclusively in their homes. The organization acknowledged that the capuchin monkeys it trains are not necessarily suitable for use in a place of public accommodation but noted that the monkeys may need to be used in circumstances that implicate title III coverage, e.g., in the event the handler had to leave home due to an emergency, to visit a veterinarian, or for the initial delivery of the monkey to the individual with a disability. The organization noted that several State and local government entities have local zoning, licensing, health, and safety laws that prohibit non-human primates, and that these prohibitions would prevent individuals with disabilities from using these animals even in their homes.

The organization argued that including capuchin monkeys under the service animal umbrella would make it easier for individuals with disabilities to obtain reasonable modifications of State and local licensing, health, and safety laws that would permit the use of these monkeys. The organization argued that this limited modification to the service animal definition was warranted in view of the services these monkeys perform, which enable many individuals with paraplegia and quadriplegia to live and function with increased independence.

The Department has carefully considered the potential risks associated with the use of nonhuman primates as service animals in places of public accommodation, as well as the information provided to the Department about the significant benefits that trained capuchin monkeys provide to certain individuals with disabilities in residential settings. The Department has determined, however, that nonhuman primates, including capuchin monkeys, will not be recognized as service animals for purposes of this rule because of their potential for disease transmission and unpredictable aggressive behavior. The Department believes that these characteristics make nonhuman primates unsuitable for use as service animals in the context of the wide variety of public settings subject to this rule. As the organization advocating the inclusion of capuchin monkeys acknowledges, capuchin monkeys are not suitable for use in public facilities.

The Department emphasizes that it has decided only that capuchin monkeys will not be included in the definition of service animals for purposes of its regulation implementing the ADA. This decision does not have any effect on the extent to which public accommodations are required to allow the use of such monkeys under other Federal statutes, like the FHAct or the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA). For example, a public accommodation that also is considered to be a “dwelling” may be covered under both the ADA and the FHAct. While the ADA does not require such a public accommodation to admit people with service monkeys, the FHAct may. Under the FHAct an individual with a disability may have the right to have an animal other than a dog in his or her home if the animal qualifies as a “reasonable accommodation” that is necessary to afford the individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, assuming that the use of the animal does not pose a direct threat. In some cases, the right of an individual to have an animal under the FHAct may conflict with State or local laws that prohibit all individuals, with or without disabilities, from owning a particular species. However, in this circumstance, an individual who wishes to request a reasonable modification of the State or local law must do so under the FHAct, not the ADA.

Having considered all of the comments about which species should qualify as service animals under the ADA, the Department has determined the most reasonable approach is to limit acceptable species to dogs.

Size or weight limitations. The vast majority of commenters did not support a size or weight limitation. Commenters were typically opposed to a size or weight limit because many tasks performed by service animals require large, strong dogs. For instance, service animals may perform tasks such as providing balance and support or pulling a wheelchair. Small animals may not be suitable for large adults. The weight of the service animal user is often correlated with the size and weight of the service animal. Others were concerned that adding a size and weight limit would further complicate the difficult process of finding an appropriate service animal. One commenter noted that there is no need for a limit because “if, as a practical matter, the size or weight of an individual´s service animal creates a direct threat or fundamental alteration to a particular public entity or accommodation, there are provisions that allow for the animal´s exclusion or removal.” Some common concerns among commenters in support of a size and weight limit were that a larger animal may be less able to fit in various areas with its handler, such as toilet rooms and public seating areas, and that larger animals are more difficult to control.

Balancing concerns expressed in favor of and against size and weight limitations, the Department has determined that such limitations would not be appropriate. Many individuals of larger stature require larger dogs. The Department believes it would be inappropriate to deprive these individuals of the option of using a service dog of the size required to provide the physical support and stability these individuals may need to function independently. Since large dogs have always served as service animals, continuing their use should not constitute fundamental alterations or impose undue burdens on public accommodations.

Breed limitations. A few commenters suggested that certain breeds of dogs should not be allowed to be used as service animals. Some suggested that the Department should defer to local laws restricting the breeds of dogs that individuals who reside in a community may own. Other commenters opposed breed restrictions, stating that the breed of a dog does not determine its propensity for aggression and that aggressive and non-aggressive dogs exist in all breeds.

The Department does not believe that it is either appropriate or consistent with the ADA to defer to local laws that prohibit certain breeds of dogs based on local concerns that these breeds may have a history of unprovoked aggression or attacks. Such deference would have the effect of limiting the rights of persons with disabilities under the ADA who use certain service animals based on where they live rather than on whether the use of a particular animal poses a direct threat to the health and safety of others. Breed restrictions differ significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions have no breed restrictions. Others have restrictions that, while well-meaning, have the unintended effect of screening out the very breeds of dogs that have successfully served as service animals for decades without a history of the type of unprovoked aggression or attacks that would pose a direct threat, e.g., German Shepherds. Other jurisdictions prohibit animals over a certain weight, thereby restricting breeds without invoking an express breed ban. In addition, deference to breed restrictions contained in local laws would have the unacceptable consequence of restricting travel by an individual with a disability who uses a breed that is acceptable and poses no safety hazards in the individual´s home jurisdiction but is nonetheless banned by other jurisdictions. Public accommodations have the ability to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular service animal can be excluded based on that particular animal´s actual behavior or history–not based on fears or generalizations about how an animal or breed might behave. This ability to exclude an animal whose behavior or history evidences a direct threat is sufficient to protect health and safety.

Recognition of psychiatric service animals, but not “emotional support animals.” The definition of “service animal” in the NPRM stated the Department´s longstanding position that emotional support animals are not included in the definition of “service animal.” The proposed text provided that “[a]nimals whose sole function is to provide emotional support, comfort, therapy, companionship, therapeutic benefits, or to promote emotional well-being are not service animals.” 73 FR 34508, 34553 (June 17, 2008).

Many advocacy organizations expressed concern and disagreed with the exclusion of comfort and emotional support animals. Others have been more specific, stating that individuals with disabilities may need their emotional support animals in order to have equal access. Some commenters noted that individuals with disabilities use animals that have not been trained to perform tasks directly related to their disability. These animals do not qualify as service animals under the ADA. These are emotional support or comfort animals.

Commenters asserted that excluding categories such as “comfort” and “emotional support” animals recognized by laws such as the FHAct or the ACAA is confusing and burdensome. Other commenters noted that emotional support and comfort animals perform an important function, asserting that animal companionship helps individuals who experience depression resulting from multiple sclerosis.

Some commenters explained the benefits emotional support animals provide, including emotional support, comfort, therapy, companionship, therapeutic benefits, and the promotion of emotional well-being. They contended that without the presence of an emotional support animal in their lives they would be disadvantaged and unable to participate in society. These commenters were concerned that excluding this category of animals will lead to discrimination against and excessive questioning of individuals with non-visible or non-apparent disabilities. Other commenters expressing opposition to the exclusion of individually trained “comfort” or “emotional support” animals asserted that the ability to soothe or de-escalate and control emotion is “work” that benefits the individual with the disability.

Many commenters requested that the Department carve out an exception that permits current or former members of the military to use emotional support animals. They asserted that a significant number of service members returning from active combat duty have adjustment difficulties due to combat, sexual assault, or other traumatic experiences while on active duty. Commenters noted that some current or former members of the military service have been prescribed animals for conditions such as PTSD. One commenter stated that service women who were sexually assaulted while in the military use emotional support animals to help them feel safe enough to step outside their homes. The Department recognizes that many current and former members of the military have disabilities as a result of service-related injuries that may require emotional support and that such individuals can benefit from the use of an emotional support animal and could use such animal in their home under the FHAct. However, having carefully weighed the issues, the Department believes that its final rule appropriately addresses the balance of issues and concerns of both the individual with a disability and the public accommodation. The Department also notes that nothing in this part prohibits a public entity from allowing current or former military members or anyone else with disabilities to utilize emotional support animals if it wants to do so.

Commenters asserted the view that if an animal´s “mere presence” legitimately provides such benefits to an individual with a disability and if those benefits are necessary to provide equal opportunity given the facts of the particular disability, then such an animal should qualify as a “service animal.” Commenters noted that the focus should be on the nature of a person´s disability, the difficulties the disability may impose and whether the requested accommodation would legitimately address those difficulties, not on evaluating the animal involved. The Department understands this approach has benefitted many individuals under the FHAct and analogous State law provisions, where the presence of animals poses fewer health and safety issues and where emotional support animals provide assistance that is unique to residential settings. The Department believes, however, that the presence of such animals is not required in the context of public accommodations, such as restaurants, hospitals, hotels, retail establishments, and assembly areas.

Under the Department´s previous regulatory framework, some individuals and entities assumed that the requirement that service animals must be individually trained to do work or perform tasks excluded all individuals with mental disabilities from having service animals. Others assumed that any person with a psychiatric condition whose pet provided comfort to them was covered by the 1991 title III regulation. The Department reiterates that psychiatric service animals that are trained to do work or perform a task for individuals whose disability is covered by the ADA are protected by the Department´s present regulatory approach. Psychiatric service animals can be trained to perform a variety of tasks that assist individuals with disabilities to detect the onset of psychiatric episodes and ameliorate their effects. Tasks performed by psychiatric service animals may include reminding the handler to take medicine, providing safety checks or room searches for persons with PTSD, interrupting self-mutilation, and removing disoriented individuals from dangerous situations.

The difference between an emotional support animal and a psychiatric service animal is the work or tasks that the animal performs. Traditionally, service dogs worked as guides for individuals who were blind or had low vision. Since the original regulation was promulgated, service animals have been trained to assist individuals with many different types of disabilities.

In the final rule, the Department has retained its position on the exclusion of emotional support animals from the definition of “service animal.” The definition states that “[t]he provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship * * * do[es] not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.” The Department notes, however, that the exclusion of emotional support animals from coverage in the final rule does not mean that individuals with psychiatric or mental disabilities cannot use service animals that meet the regulatory definition. The final rule defines service animal as follows: “Service animal means 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, This language simply clarifies the Department´s longstanding position.

The Department´s position is based on the fact that the title II and title III regulations govern a wider range of public settings than the housing and transportation settings for which the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the DOT regulations allow emotional support animals or comfort animals. The Department recognizes that there are situations not governed by the title II and title III regulations, particularly in the context of residential settings and transportation, where there may be a legal obligation to permit the use of animals that do not qualify as service animals under the ADA, but whose presence nonetheless provides necessary emotional support to persons with disabilities. Accordingly, other Federal agency regulations, case law, and possibly State or local laws governing those situations may provide appropriately for increased access for animals other than service animals as defined under the ADA. Public officials, housing providers, and others who make decisions relating to animals in residential and transportation settings should consult the Federal, State, and local laws that apply in those areas (e.g., the FHAct regulations of HUD and the ACAA) and not rely on the ADA as a basis for reducing those obligations.

Retain term “service animal.” Some commenters asserted that the term “assistance animal” is a term of art and should replace the term “service animal”; however, the majority of commenters preferred the term “service animal” because it is more specific. The Department has decided to retain the term “service animal” in the final rule. While some agencies, like HUD, use the terms “assistance animal,” “assistive animal,” or “support animal,” these terms are used to denote a broader category of animals than is covered by the ADA. The Department has decided that changing the term used in the final rule would create confusion, particularly in view of the broader parameters for coverage under the FHAct, cf. Preamble to HUD´s Final Rule for Pet Ownership for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities, 73 FR 63834–38 (Oct. 27, 2008); HUD Handbook No. 4350.3 Rev-1, Chapter 2, Occupancy Requirements of Subsidized Multifamily Housing Programs (June 2007), available at www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/handbooks/hsgh/4350.3 (last visited June 24, 2010). Moreover, as discussed above, the Department´s definition of “service animal” in the final rule does not affect the rights of individuals with disabilities who use assistance animals in their homes under the FHAct or who use “emotional support animals” that are covered under the ACAA and its implementing regulations. See 14 CFR 382.7 et seq.; see also Department of Transportation, Guidance Concerning Service Animals in Air Transportation, 68 FR 24874, 24877 (May 9, 2003) (discussing accommodation of service animals and emotional support animals on aircraft).

Section 35.136 Service animals.

The 1991 title II regulation states that “[a] public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program or activity.” 28 CFR 130(b)(7). Unlike the title III regulation, the 1991 title II regulation did not contain a specific provision addressing service animals.

In the NPRM, the Department stated the intention of providing the broadest feasible access to individuals with disabilities and their service animals, unless a public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications to policies excluding animals would fundamentally alter the nature of the public entity´s service, program, or activity. The Department proposed creating a new § 35.136 addressing service animals that was intended to retain the scope of the 1991 title III regulation at § 36.302(c), while clarifying the Department´s longstanding policies and interpretations, as outlined in published technical assistance, Commonly Asked Questions About Service Animals in Places of Business (1996), available at www.ada.gov/qasrvc.ftm and ADA Guide for Small Businesses (1999) available at www.ada.gov/smbustxt.htm, and to add that a public entity may exclude a service animal in certain circumstances where the service animal fails to meet certain behavioral standards. The Department received extensive comments in response to proposed § 35.136 from individuals, disability advocacy groups, organizations involved in training service animals, and public entities. Those comments and the Department´s response are discussed below.

Exclusion of service animals. In the NPRM, the Department proposed incorporating the title III regulatory language of § 36.302(c) into new § 35.136(a) which states that “[g]enerally, a public entity shall modify its policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that the use of a service animal would fundamentally alter the public entity´s service, program, or activity.” The final rule retains this language with some modifications.

In addition, in the NPRM, the Department proposed clarifying those circumstances where otherwise eligible service animals may be excluded by public entities from their programs or facilities. The Department proposed in § 35.136(b)(1) of the NPRM that a public entity may ask an individual with a disability to remove a service animal from a title II service, program, or activity if: “[t]he animal is out of control and the animal´s handler does not take effective action to control it.” 73 FR 34466, 34504 (June 17, 2008).

The Department has long held that a service animal must be under the control of the handler at all times. Commenters overwhelmingly were in favor of this language, but noted that there are occasions when service animals are provoked to disruptive or aggressive behavior by agitators or troublemakers, as in the case of a blind individual whose service dog is taunted or pinched. While all service animals are trained to ignore and overcome these types of incidents, misbehavior in response to provocation is not always unreasonable. In circumstances where a service animal misbehaves or responds reasonably to a provocation or injury, the public entity must give the handler a reasonable opportunity to gain control of the animal. Further, if the individual with a disability asserts that the animal was provoked or injured, or if the public entity otherwise has reason to suspect that provocation or injury has occurred, the public entity should seek to determine the facts and, if provocation or injury occurred, the public entity should take effective steps to prevent further provocation or injury, which may include asking the provocateur to leave the public entity. This language is unchanged in the final rule.

The NPRM also proposed language at § 35.136(b)(2) to permit a public entity to exclude a service animal if the animal is not housebroken (i.e., trained so that, absent illness or accident, the animal controls its waste elimination) or the animal´s presence or behavior fundamentally alters the nature of the service the public entity provides (e.g., repeated barking during a live performance). Several commenters were supportive of this NPRM language, but cautioned against overreaction by the public entity in these instances. One commenter noted that animals get sick, too, and that accidents occasionally happen. In these circumstances, simple clean up typically addresses the incident. Commenters noted that the public entity must be careful when it excludes a service animal on the basis of “fundamental alteration,” asserting for example that a public entity should not exclude a service animal for barking in an environment where other types of noise, such as loud cheering or a child crying, is tolerated. The Department maintains that the appropriateness of an exclusion can be assessed by reviewing how a public entity addresses comparable situations that do not involve a service animal. The Department has retained in § 35.136(b) of the final rule the exception requiring animals to be housebroken. The Department has not retained the specific NPRM language stating that animals can be excluded if their presence or behavior fundamentally alters the nature of the service provided by the public entity, because the Department believes that this exception is covered by the general reasonable modification requirement contained in § 35.130(b)(7).

The NPRM also proposed at § 35.136(b)(3) that a service animal can be excluded where “[t]he animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable modifications.” 73 FR 34466, 34504 (June 17, 2003). Commenters were universally supportive of this provision as it makes express the discretion of a public entity to exclude a service animal that poses a direct threat. Several commenters cautioned against the overuse of this provision and suggested that the Department provide an example of the rule´s application. The Department has decided not to include regulatory language specifically stating that a service animal can be excluded if it poses a direct threat. The Department believes that the addition of new § 35.139, which incorporates the language of the title III provisions at § 36.302 relating to the general defense of direct threat, is sufficient to establish the availability of this defense to public entities.

Access to a public entity following the proper exclusion of a service animal. The NPRM proposed that in the event a public entity properly excludes a service animal, the public entity must give the individual with a disability the opportunity to access the programs, services, and facilities of the public entity without the service animal. Most commenters welcomed this provision as a common sense approach. These commenters noted that they do not wish to preclude individuals with disabilities from the full and equal enjoyment of the State or local government´s programs, services, or facilities, simply because of an isolated problem with a service animal. The Department has elected to retain this provision in § 35.136(a).

Other requirements. The NPRM also proposed that the regulation include the following requirements: that the work or tasks performed by the service animal must be directly related to the handler´s disability; that a service animal must be individually trained to do work or perform a task, be housebroken, and be under the control of the handler; and that a service animal must have a harness, leash, or other tether. Most commenters addressed at least one of these issues in their responses. Most agreed that these provisions are important to clarify further the 1991 service animal regulation. The Department has moved the requirement that the work or tasks performed by the service animal must be related directly to the handler´s disability to the definition of “service animal” in § 35.104. In addition, the Department has modified the proposed language in § 35.136(d) relating to the handler´s control of the animal with a harness, leash, or other tether to state that “[a] service animal shall have a harness, leash, or other tether, unless either the handler is unable because of a disability to use a harness, leash, or other tether, or the use of a harness, leash, or other tether would interfere with the service animal´s safe, effective performance of work or tasks, in which case the service animal must be otherwise under the handler´s control (e.g., voice control, signals, or other effective means).” The Department has retained the requirement that the service animal must be individually trained (see Appendix A discussion of § 35.104, definition of “service animal”), as well as the requirement that the service animal be housebroken.

Responsibility for supervision and care of a service animal. The NPRM proposed language at § 35.136(e) stating that “[a] public entity is not responsible for caring for or supervising a service animal.” 73 FR 34466, 34504 (June 17, 2008). Most commenters did not address this particular provision. The Department recognizes that there are occasions when a person with a disability is confined to bed in a hospital for a period of time. In such an instance, the individual may not be able to walk or feed the service animal. In such cases, if the individual has a family member, friend, or other person willing to take on these responsibilities in the place of the individual with disabilities, the individual´s obligation to be responsible for the care and supervision of the service animal would be satisfied. The language of this section is retained, with minor modifications, in § 35.136(e) of the final rule.

Inquiries about service animals. The NPRM proposed language at § 35.136(f) setting forth parameters about how a public entity may determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. The proposed section stated that a public entity may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what task or work the animal has been trained to do but may not require proof of service animal certification or licensing. Such inquiries are limited to eliciting the information necessary to make a decision without requiring disclosure of confidential disability-related information that a State or local government entity does not need. This language is consistent with the policy guidance outlined in two Department publications, Commonly Asked Questions about Service Animals in Places of Business (1996), available at www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm, and ADA Guide for Small Businesses, (1999), available at www.ada.gov/smbustxt.htm.

Although some commenters contended that the NPRM service animal provisions leave unaddressed the issue of how a public entity can distinguish between a psychiatric service animal, which is covered under the final rule, and a comfort animal, which is not, other commenters noted that the Department´s published guidance has helped public entities to distinguish between service animals and pets on the basis of an individual´s response to these questions. Accordingly, the Department has retained the NPRM language incorporating its guidance concerning the permissible questions into the final rule.

Some commenters suggested that a title II entity be allowed to require current documentation, no more than one year old, on letterhead from a mental health professional stating the following: (1) that the individual seeking to use the animal has a mental health-related disability; (2) that having the animal accompany the individual is necessary to the individual´s mental health or treatment or to assist the person otherwise; and (3) that the person providing the assessment of the individual is a licensed mental health professional and the individual seeking to use the animal is under that individual´s professional care. These commenters asserted that this will prevent abuse and ensure that individuals with legitimate needs for psychiatric service animals may use them. The Department believes that this proposal would treat persons with psychiatric, intellectual, and other mental disabilities less favorably than persons with physical or sensory disabilities. The proposal would also require persons with disabilities to obtain medical documentation and carry it with them any time they seek to engage in ordinary activities of daily life in their communities–something individuals without disabilities have not been required to do. Accordingly, the Department has concluded that a documentation requirement of this kind would be unnecessary, burdensome, and contrary to the spirit, intent, and mandates of the ADA.

Areas of a public entity open to the public, participants in services, programs, or activities, or invitees. The NPRM proposed at § 35.136(g) that an individual with a disability who uses a service animal has the same right of access to areas of a title II entity as members of the public, participants in services, programs, or activities, or invitees. Commenters indicated that allowing individuals with disabilities to go with their service animals into the same areas as members of the public, participants in programs, services, or activities, or invitees is accepted practice by most State and local government entities. The Department has included a slightly modified version of this provision in § 35.136(g) of the final rule.

The Department notes that under the final rule, a healthcare facility must also permit a person with a disability to be accompanied by a service animal in all areas of the facility in which that person would otherwise be allowed. There are some exceptions, however. The Department follows the guidance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the use of service animals in a hospital setting. Zoonotic diseases can be transmitted to humans through bites, scratches, direct contact, arthropod vectors, or aerosols.

Consistent with CDC guidance, it is generally appropriate to exclude a service animal from limited-access areas that employ general infection-control measures, such as operating rooms and burn units. See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities: Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (June 2003), available at www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/eic_in_HCF_03.pdf (last visited June 24, 2010). A service animal may accompany its handler to such areas as admissions and discharge offices, the emergency room, inpatient and outpatient rooms, examining and diagnostic rooms, clinics, rehabilitation therapy areas, the cafeteria and vending areas, the pharmacy, restrooms, and all other areas of the facility where healthcare personnel, patients, and visitors are permitted without added precaution.

Prohibition against surcharges for use of a service animal. In the NPRM, the Department proposed to incorporate the previously mentioned policy guidance, which prohibits the assessment of a surcharge for the use of a service animal, into proposed § 35.136(h). Several commenters agreed that this provision makes clear the obligation of a public entity to admit an individual with a service animal without surcharges, and that any additional costs imposed should be factored into the overall cost of administering a program, service, or activity, and passed on as a charge to all participants, rather than an individualized surcharge to the service animal user. Commenters also noted that service animal users cannot be required to comply with other requirements that are not generally applicable to other persons. If a public entity normally charges individuals for the damage they cause, an individual with a disability may be charged for damage caused by his or her service animal. The Department has retained this language, with minor modifications, in the final rule at § 35.136(h).

Training requirement. Certain commenters recommended the adoption of formal training requirements for service animals. The Department has rejected this approach and will not impose any type of formal training requirements or certification process, but will continue to require that service animals be individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. While some groups have urged the Department to modify this position, the Department has determined that such a modification would not serve the full array of individuals with disabilities who use service animals, since individuals with disabilities may be capable of training, and some have trained, their service animal to perform tasks or do work to accommodate their disability. A training and certification requirement would increase the expense of acquiring a service animal and might limit access to service animals for individuals with limited financial resources.

Some commenters proposed specific behavior or training standards for service animals, arguing that without such standards, the public has no way to differentiate between untrained pets and service animals. Many of the suggested behavior or training standards were lengthy and detailed. The Department believes that this rule addresses service animal behavior sufficiently by including provisions that address the obligations of the service animal user and the circumstances under which a service animal may be excluded, such as the requirements that an animal be housebroken and under the control of its handler.

Miniature horses. The Department has been persuaded by commenters and the available research to include a provision that would require public entities to make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by a person with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability. The traditional service animal is a dog, which has a long history of guiding individuals who are blind or have low vision, and over time dogs have been trained to perform an even wider variety of services for individuals with all types of disabilities. However, an organization that developed a program to train miniature horses, modeled on the program used for guide dogs, began training miniature horses in 1991.

Although commenters generally supported the species limitations proposed in the NPRM, some were opposed to the exclusion of miniature horses from the definition of a service animal. These commenters noted that these animals have been providing assistance to persons with disabilities for many years. Miniature horses were suggested by some commenters as viable alternatives to dogs for individuals with allergies, or for those whose religious beliefs preclude the use of dogs. Another consideration mentioned in favor of the use of miniature horses is the longer life span and strength of miniature horses in comparison to dogs. Specifically, miniature horses can provide service for more than 25 years while dogs can provide service for approximately 7 years, and, because of their strength, miniature horses can provide services that dogs cannot provide. Accordingly, use of miniature horses reduces the cost involved to retire, replace, and train replacement service animals.

The miniature horse is not one specific breed, but may be one of several breeds, with distinct characteristics that produce animals suited to service animal work. The animals generally range in height from 24 inches to 34 inches measured to the withers, or shoulders, and generally weigh between 70 and 100 pounds. These characteristics are similar to those of large breed dogs such as Labrador Retrievers, Great Danes, and Mastiffs. Similar to dogs, miniature horses can be trained through behavioral reinforcement to be “housebroken.” Most miniature service horse handlers and organizations recommend that when the animals are not doing work or performing tasks, the miniature horses should be kept outside in a designated area, instead of indoors in a house.

According to information provided by an organization that trains service horses, these miniature horses are trained to provide a wide array of services to their handlers, primarily guiding individuals who are blind or have low vision, pulling wheelchairs, providing stability and balance for individuals with disabilities that impair the ability to walk, and supplying leverage that enables a person with a mobility disability to get up after a fall. According to the commenter, miniature horses are particularly effective for large stature individuals. The animals can be trained to stand (and in some cases, lie down) at the handler´s feet in venues where space is at a premium, such as assembly areas or inside some vehicles that provide public transportation. Some individuals with disabilities have traveled by train and have flown commercially with their miniature horses.

The miniature horse is not included in the definition of service animal, which is limited to dogs. However, the Department has added a specific provision at § 35.136(i) of the final rule covering miniature horses. Under this provision, a public entity must make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability. The public entity may take into account a series of assessment factors in determining whether to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility. These include the type, size, and weight of the miniature horse; whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse; whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and whether the miniature horse´s presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation. In addition, paragraphs (c)-(h) of this section, which are applicable to dogs, also apply to miniature horses.

Ponies and full-size horses are not covered by § 35.136(i). Also, because miniature horses can vary in size and can be larger and less flexible than dogs, covered entities may exclude this type of service animal if the presence of the miniature horse, because of its larger size and lower level of flexibility, results in a fundamental alteration to the nature of the programs activities, or services provided.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

• a burning sensation in the back of the neck, forearms and chest
• numbness in the back of the neck, radiating to the arms and back
• tingling, warmth and weakness in the face, temples, upper back, neck and arms
• facial pressure or tightness
• chest pain
• headache including migraines
• nausea
• rapid heartbeat
• difficulty breathing in people with asthma
• drowsiness
• weakness

I don’t know about you but this isn’t my idea of a good time! Miyoko Schinner, author of The New Now and Zen Epicure: Gourmet Vegan Recipes for the Enlightened Palate has created a flavoring that doubles as a bouillon. The recipe can be found on a site devoted to the unturkey and below. For those of you who didn’t have a chance to taste an unturkey before Now & Zen went out of business, I highly recommend making the recipe on this site to create one of your own. Unlike the tofurkey, the unturkey tastes good.

The Schinner’s flavoring uses nutritional yeast as its main ingredient and does not use any free glutamates. Nutritional yeast can be found in most health food stores. It’s a nutritional supplement similar to brewer’s yeast. It’s a deactivated yeast that is high in protein and vitamins (especially B-complex vitamins) but low in salt and fat. It has a cheese-like flavor so many vegans and lactose-intolerant individuals use it as a substitute for Parmesan on pasta or as a substitute for white cheddar on popcorn.

Nutritional Yeast vs. Brewer’s Yeast

So, if nutritional yeast is similar to brewer’s yeast, how exactly is it different? The Cook’s Thesaurus does an excellent job of explaining this:

Brewer’s Yeast
Notes: This inactive yeast is rich in protein and B vitamins, and it’s used [as] a nutritional supplement. It’s a by-product of beer-making, which gives it a slightly bitter flavor. If you object to the bitterness, try nutritional yeast, which is made from the same yeast strain but grown on molasses. It’s more expensive but has a more pleasant flavor. You can also buy debittered brewer’s yeast. Brewer’s yeast comes powdered (the most potent form), in flakes (best for health shakes), and in tablets. Don’t confuse this with active forms of yeast, like the kinds bakers, brewers, and winemakers use. If you eat them, active yeasts will continue to grow in your intestine, robbing your body of valuable nutrients.
Substitutes: nutritional yeast (better, nuttier flavor, lighter color) OR yeast extract

Nutritional Yeast
Equivalents: 1 tablespoon powdered = 2 tablespoons flakes
Notes: This nutritional supplement has a pleasant nutty-cheesy flavor and is packed with protein and B vitamins. It comes in flakes or powder and is popular with vegans and health buffs who use it to make cheese substitutes, gravies, and many other dishes. It’s also a great topping for popcorn. Nutritional yeast is very similar to brewer’s yeast, which is also used as a nutritional supplement and is made from the same strain of yeast. The difference is that brewer’s yeast is a by-product of beer production and retains some of the bitter flavor of hops. Don’t confuse nutritional yeast, which is deactivated, with active forms of yeast, like the kinds bakers, brewers, and winemakers use. If you eat them, active yeasts will continue to grow in your intestine, robbing your body of valuable nutrients. Look for nutritional yeast at health food stores. Get fortified nutritional yeast if you’re taking it as a source of vitamin B12.
Substitutes: brewer’s yeast (inferior flavor, darker color) OR Parmesan cheese (as a condiment; higher in fat, less nutritious [and is not vegan]) OR wheat germ (works well in baked goods or sprinkled on cereals) OR yeast extract [which contains free glutamates]

Light Yeast Flavoring Powder

Makes approximately 185 ml (6.5 ounces) of powder

I usually triple the recipe and keep it in the refrigerator. If you don’t think you will go through it quickly enough, you can store it in the freezer. When the recipe is tripled, it makes approximately 2.5 cups (550 ml) of flavoring powder. I use 1 teaspoon Light Yeast Flavoring Powder mixed into 1 cup of boiling water in place of 1 cup broth whenever it is called for in a recipe. This broth is also what I reach for when I’m not feeling well. It makes an excellent seasoning in cooking in general. This recipe will be called on again when I discuss the ways to make seitan.

Ingredients

You may look at the ingredients and think that’s a LOT of spices to purchases and spices are expensive. Check out places like the PCC and Whole Foods which will sell you only the amount of spices you need instead of large jars. Buying spices in smaller amounts will be less expensive and your spices will end up being fresher. Once a month, I buy what spices I think I’ll need that month. I end up spending only a few dollars at most for many different spices instead of just for one and since the spices are fresh, I can use what the recipe calls for instead of increasing it because my spices have lost their flavor.

• 1 c nutritional yeast flakes*
• 1 T salt
• 1/2 t ground ginger
• 1/2 t turmeric
• 1 t ground black pepper
• 1 t leaf marjoram
• 1 t tarragon
• 1 t paprika
• 1 t rosemary leaves
• 2 t rubbed sage
• 2 t celery seed
• 2 t thyme
• 2 t garlic powder
• 2 t onion powder

*Some stores sell two sizes of flakes. Choose the larger size. If only powdered nutritional yeast is available, use half the amount stated above.

Tools

• Cuisinart fitted with a metal blade — OR — blender*
• Large enough airtight container to hold the finished product. Use a Food Saver container if you have one.
• Measuring spoons and cups

*Only use a blender if you are making the recipe as stated. If you double or triple the recipe, you will have a much easier time if you use a Cuisinart.

Directions

1. Measure and place all of the ingredients in the Cuisinart.
2. Process until the mixture is a fine powder.
3. Place ingredients in an airtight container and store in the refrigerator or freezer.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Vanilla Cupcakes

Serves 12

Ingredients

Dry Ingredients:

• 1 1/4 c pastry flour*
• 2 T arrowroot powder
• 1 t baking soda
• 1 t baking powder
• 1/4 t salt

*I ground soft red wheat.

Wet Ingredients:

• 1/2 c applesauce
• 2/3 c homemade vanilla soymilk
• 1 T canola oil
• 1 t liquid stevia
• 1 1/2 t vanilla extract
• 1 1/2 c okara

Needed Tools

• Muffin/cupcake pan
• 12 paper bake cups
• Sifter
• Cuisinart with metal blade
• Small bowl

Directions

1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees.
2. Place paper baking cups in the muffin pan
3. Sift the dry ingredients together into a small bowl and then set aside.
4. Place the wet ingredients into the Cuisinart and process until smooth. You may need to scrape the sides of the bowl occasionally to make sure that it is completely mixed.
5. Add the dry mixture into the Cuisinart with the wet ingredients. Pulse to blend until the dry ingredients are moistened.
6. Pour 1/4 c of the mixture into each baking cup.
7. Bake for 22 minutes or until toothpick inserted into the center of one cupcake comes out clean.
8. Let cool before turning out.

Nutritional Information

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

• Character. Moral Courage: principle vs. expediency
• Integrity. Political Indecency: swiftboating
• Action. Real Change: Who will inspire & lead us towards peace?

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Another big thank you to Stephanie Steiner the Grocery Buyer/Merchandiser for the PCC. I appreciate the detailed and honest response you sent me about White Wave products. Employees like you are one reason why I continue to be a loyal shopper at the PCC. I wish Whole Foods had been as honest in their response about Horizon Organics and non-response about White Wave instead of hiding behind a confidentiality statement that prohibits me from discussing the contents of their answer with others.

Vegan Carob Brownies

Here’s another recipe for your okara left from your last batch of soymilk. These brownies are absolutely yummy! Serve them hot with a little Soy Delicious vanilla ice cream or a little vanilla soymilk on top and you have quite a treat.

This recipe was inspired by a recipe by Holly Rudin-Braschi.

Ingredients

Dry Ingredients:

• 1 1/3 c pastry flour*
• 1/2 t baking soda
• 1/2 t cinnamon

*I ground soft red wheat.

Wet Ingredients:

• 1/2 c applesauce
• 1/2 c homemade vanilla soymilk
• 1 t canola oil
• 3/4 t liquid stevia
• 1 1/2 c okara
• 1/3 c carob powder

Additional Ingredients

• 1 c Sunspire Vegan Carob Chips

Needed Tools

• 8″ x 8″ baking pan
• Unbleached parchment paper
• Sifter
• Cuisinart with metal blade
• Small bowl

Directions

1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees.
2. Cut a piece of parchment paper to fit the bottom of the baking pan.
3. Lightly grease the bottom and sides of the pan with vegetable oil.
4. Place the cut parchment paper on top of the greased bottom and lightly grease it with vegetable oil.
5. Lightly flour the pan.
6. Sift the dry ingredients together into a small bowl and then set aside.
7. Place the wet ingredients into the Cuisinart and process until smooth. You may need to scrape the sides of the bowl occasionally to make sure that it is completely mixed.
8. Add the dry mixture into the Cuisinart with the wet ingredients. Pulse to blend until the dry ingredients are moistened.
9. Add the carob chips and pulse three times quickly to mix. Don’t pulse too much or too long or you will chop of the carob chips too finely.
10. Pour the mixture into prepared pan.
11. Bake for 22 minutes or until brownies pull away from sides.
12. Let cool before turning out. The parchment paper will peel off the bottom easily.

Nutritional Information

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

• Reducing inflammation in illnesses such as asthma, arthritis, and migraines
• Promoting bone health by helping to prevent excessive bone turnover
• Reducing the formation of blood clots which potentially reduces the risk of heart attack and stroke for those at risk
• Reducing the risk for colon, prostate and breast cancers
• Lowering blood pressure
• Lowering cholesterol levels
• Relieving constipation
• Stabilizing blood sugar levels in diabetics
• Preventing the blood vessel spasm that leads to migraine attacks
• Promoting relaxation and restores normal sleep patterns
• Reducing the severity of asthma by keeping airways relaxed and open
• Improving chances of conception for those women trying to get pregnant
• Restoring hormonal balance in perimenopausal women
• Lowering the risk of Dry Eye Syndrome (DES)

I’ve made it part of my daily breakfast (see below) and even if it didn’t help with the above, it’s filling and tastes great.

Loom Knitting

When loom knitting with flax yarn, remember to knit loosely because the yarn has little elasticity. It is a not a yarn for beginners to knit with. For intermediate to advanced knitters, remember to follow the guidelines for good loom knitting habits on Loom Knitting Help and you will have a much easier time knitting with this yarn.

Becky’s Breakfast Granola

Most store-bought granolas are not good for you because of the amount of added sugar and hydrogenated fats. My granola has no added fat and the sugar used, agave syrup, has a lower glycemic index and load than most sweeteners on the market. Even so, the agave syrup can be omitted if you’d prefer. While this breakfast is not low in calories, it is high in protein and fiber. It’s also high in omega-3 fatty acids which has the many wonderful health benefits noted above. If you are not used to eating a high fiber diet, you should begin to incorporate flaxseed into your diet 1 teaspoon at a time to avoid flatulence and bloating. Be sure to drink enough water during the day (6-8 cups).

We can all feel the price of foods squeezing our wallet. A recent study done at the University of Washington confirms that the cost of healthy foods has skyrocketed compared to junk foods. The cost of organic foods is even higher so many people have become smart about which ones they purchase. The grains, nuts and some fruits listed below are on the list of foods to consider purchasing as organic because they are loaded with pesticides. Please keep this in mind when preparing the granola.

I make my granola in a dehydrator but you can spread it out on cookie sheets and bake it in the oven as well. Be sure to store your granola in the refrigerator once it’s done.

This granola tastes great with soymilk.

14 servings

Ingredients

• 4 cups old fashioned oats
• 1 cup wheat germ
• 1 cup oat bran
• 1 cup chopped deglet noor dates
• ½ cup organic raw blue agave syrup
• Flaxseed

Optional:

• 1 cup sliced almonds
• 1 cup unsweetened coconut flakes
• &fract12; cup each of other dried fruits

Directions

1. In a large bowl, mix the oats, wheat germ and oat bran together.
2. Heat the agave syrup in the microwave for 30 seconds and pour over the grain mixture. Mix well. Lumps will form as you mix.
3. Add the chopped dates and other optional ingredients. Mix well.
4. Spoon the mixture onto the dehydrator trays.
5. Set the dehydrator to 145º and keep it on for 2-7 hours.
6. Put in the glass or plastic container and store in the refrigerator.
7. Serve with 2-4 T of ground flaxseed.

If you go through the granola quickly, you can add the ground flaxseed before putting the container in the refrigerator. Ground flaxseed goes rancid quickly though so it’s recommended to add it at the time you eat it.

Nutritional Information

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Low-fat Vegan Pumpkin Pie

Makes 8 servings.

Ingredients

• 15 oz can of pumpkin or 2 cups cooked
• 2 1/4 c okara (from 2 batches of soymilk)
• 1/2-2/3 t stevia
• 2/3 c soymilk
• 1 t vanilla (only if the soymilk is not vanilla)
• 1 T pumpkin pie spice
• 1 unbaked 9″ pie crust

Directions

1. Preheat oven to 350º.
2. Place the okara and soymilk in the food processor or blender and process until smooth.
3. Add the pumpkin, stevia, pumpkin pie spice and vanilla (if using) and blend well.
4. Pour into the pie crust.
5. Bake in oven for 1 hour. The filling will still be soft when done.
6. Chill in the refrigerator for at least one hour. The filling will firm as it chills.

Nutritional Information

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

To also help you along your way, here a recipe for making soymilk in a soymilk maker. The one I use is a SoyaPower by Sanlix.

Vanilla Soymilk

This is a very smooth tasting soymilk that makes approximately six servings. In addition to the soymilk maker, you’ll need a gold coffee filter, wide mouth funnel, and glass pitcher. I highly recommend Frigoverre pitchers as they have a hermetically-sealed lid. You can purchase these pitchers from Chef’s Catalog, Village Kitchen and GreenFeet. Do not use a plastic pitcher to store your soymilk in.

Ingredients

• 100 grams soybeans
• 2″ piece of a vanilla bean, cut into 4-6 pieces
• 10-15 drops of liquid stevia such as SteviaClear
• Pinch of salt

Directions

1. Rinse and soak the soybeans overnight (8-10 hours) in the refrigerator.
2. Drain and rinse beans. Do not worry about removing the hull from the beans.
3. Fill the pitcher of the soymilk maker with filtered water until it reaches a halfway point between the two water level marks on the side of the pitcher.
4. Place the beans in the soymilk maker’s filter and attach to the soymilk maker per your manufacturer’s directions.
5. Place the soymilk maker’s head onto the pitcher. Lock the latches if your maker has them.
6. Plug the power cord into the soymilk maker and then into a power outlet.
7. Push the Start button on your soymilk maker. The machine will start by heating the water and then it will grind the soybeans. After 15-20 minutes, the machine will beep to let you know that it has finished and the milk is done.
8. After hearing the beep, unplug the power cord from the power outlet and then from the soymilk maker. Set the power cord aside.
9. Unlock the latch if necessary and lift the head off of the pitcher. Place the head aside and let it cool.

Once it has cooled, store the okara in the refrigerator or freezer for another recipe. You can also use okara in place of eggs in some recipes.

10. Using a spoon, slowly stir the milk in the pitcher to help the foam dissipate.
11. Put the salt, stevia, and vanilla bean into the glass pitcher. Place the funnel in the glass pitcher and the gold coffee filter on top.
12. Pour the milk into the glass pitcher through the gold coffee filter.
13. Allow to cool to room temperature and then store in the refrigerator.

Nutritional Information

To increase the calcium, add calcium carbonate to your soymilk after it has cooled. You can purchase the supplements from your local pharmacy. It is also available for purchase from VeganEssentials. You will need to shake the soymilk before each use to distribute it.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Infant Sweater

Infant Sweater byRebecca Novelli is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

Pattern Information

Loom: DA ESG Wonderloom
Gauge: 4 sts 5 rws per 1″, Twisted Stockinette St
Yarn: Pymouth Jellie Beenz, Baby Blue
Estimated Ydg: 220
Main stitch: Twisted Stockinette St (knit tbl (e-wrap) stitch)

Suggestions

Cast-on: Crochet cast-on
Bind-off: Provisional and Crochet bind-offs
Increase stitch: Bar increase

Loom Knitting Instructions

Back

• Cast on 41 sts.
• Estab rib pat on Row 1: *K1 , P1.
• Repeat from *. End K1. Work 7 rws. On row 8, increase as below using a bar increase. [1.5"].
• Rib-to-Body Inc Row:[Work 6, inc 1 in next st] 5x, work 6. (46 sts)
• Work in pat st until piece meas 6″ [row 22]. Place underarm markers.
• Cont in pat st until piece meas 10.5″ [row 46].
• Bind off all stitches using a provisional bind-off using a different color yarn. Do not gather. (Stitches will be used as: 15 shoulder sts, 16 back neck sts, 15 shoulder sts.)

Work Front. (below)

Front

• Work as for back, including all shaping, and, at the same time when piece meas 8.5″ [row 34]
• Begin Neck Shaping: Work to stitch 20. Bind off center 6 sts using a provisional bind-off using a different color yarn. Do not gather.
• Attach another ball of yarn on opposite side of bound off stitches and complete the row.
• Work both sides at once. Bind off 2 sts (each side) at neck edge 1 x using provisional bind-off. Use the same yarn used for the center stitches.
• Dec 1 st at each neck edge by binding off as above, every other row 3x.

The bind-off will be a wide “U” shape around the neck. These stitches will be picked up when you finish off the sweater.

• Cont in pat st until each side meas 10.5″ [row 46].
• Leaving a long tail on each side, bind-off as for back but with separate yarns holding each side.

Work sleeves. (below)

Sleeves

• Cast on 21 sts.
• Work same as body rib for 7 rws [1.5"]. On the next rib rw:
• Cuff-to-Sleeve-Inc Row: Work 5 [inc 1 in next st, work 4, inc 1 in next st, work 5] 1 x, [inc 1 in next st, work 4] 1 x.
• Sleeve Shaping: Work one (odd #) row.
• Begin sleeve shaping: Inc 1 st on each side every 2nd rw 1x, then every 4th rw 5x.
• Cont in pat st until piece meas 6.5″[row 26].
• Leaving a long tail, bind off using a provisional bind-off using a different color piece of yarn (total of 36 sts). Do not gather.

Blocking

Some people choose to skip this step but it’s a mistake. It makes a difference, even with acrylic and it’s your chance to “fix” uneven fabric.

• Wet block by spray. Do not press.

Finishing & Assembly

Sides

• Place RS Front and Back fabrics facing each other.
• On the left side, join the seam from the bottom up to row 22 where the underarm markers are located and then again for the top 6 rows.
• Repeat the the right side.
• Weave in all ends.

Finish each shoulder. (15 sts)

Shoulders

• With the sweater inside out, place the stitches from both fabrics for the left shoulder onto a loom (first 15 stitches)
• Knit off all stitches
• Bind off using the crochet bind-off.
• Weave in ends.
• Repeat for the right shoulder (last 15 stitches).

Finish the Neck.

Neck

• On a circular loom, place the 16 sts from each fabric around neck edge for a total of 32 stitches on the circular loom.
• Work in single rib (*K1 , P1; rep from * to end) for 1″ or desired length.
• Bind off loosely using a crochet bind-off.
• Weave in ends.

Finish each sleeve.

Sleeves

Work with the sleeve RS out and the torso WS out.

• Setup a FG Wonderloom as a 36-peg circular loom.
• Place each sleeve row from the torso onto a peg. Remember that the WS should be facing out, down the loom.
• Push the RS-out sleeve down the torse and place each stitch on top of a stitch on the loom. There should be two stitches on each peg when you are finished.
• Knit off.
• Bind off using a crochet bind-off.
• Weave in ends.
• Repeat for the other sleeve.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Moroccan-style Lentil & Yam Stew

Ingredients

• 2 lbs garnet yams, peeled and cut into 1-2 in chunks
• 1 large sweet onion, cut into 1/2 inch crosswise slices
• 1 cup French lentils*
• 1 cup golden raisins
• 1/2 tsp cinnamon
• 1/4 tsp ginger
• 1/4 cup honey or 2T agave syrup
• 1 tbl vegan non-hydrogenated margarine
• 1 tbl olive oil
• 2 1/2 cups water or vegetable broth
• finely ground salt & pepper to taste

If using a solar oven, you’ll need to soak the French lentils overnight.

Directions

1. Preheat the broiler.
2. Brush the onion slices with olive oil on both sides. Place them on a baking sheet and broil, turning them until they are lightly browned on each side. Reserve.
3. Place the lentils, garnet yams, raisins, cinnamon, ginger, honey (or agave syrup), vegan non-hydrogenated margarine, and water in a slow cooker.
4. Place the reserved onions on top.
5. Cook until done:

• A couple of hours in a slow cooker on low
• 45-70 minutes in a tagine at 350º
• 2-3 hours in a solar oven
• 10 minutes at high pressure in a pressure cooker, allow it to come down naturally

6. Add salt & pepper to tast.

Serve alone or over couscous. Enjoy!

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Benefits

There are many advantages and benefits to using a solar oven. Here are a several reasons directly from the solar cooking wiki:

• Food needs little attention while cooking, leaving the cook free to attend to other matters.Scorching is very rare, so clean-up is simplified.
• Most of the preparation for a meal can be done early in the day, so there is less last-minute fuss.
• While food cooks in the sun, the kitchen stays cool.
• The gentle cooking preserves flavor and aroma, so the food tastes better.
• Foods can be preserved for out of season use at no cost in power, either by solar dehydration or, in the case of some acidic foods, by canning.
• In some climates, the fact that a panel cooker has potential to be used at night as a chiller could be very useful in preserving some types of short-term fresh foods or leftovers.

I hope you’ll consider giving it a try. For those of you who have looms on order from Decor Accents, Inc., the shipping box makes a great box for a solar oven. You’re part way there!

More Information

For more information on solar ovens and solar cooking, check out the following resources:

• Plans for building your own
• Solar Cookers International
• Solar Oven Society
• The Solar Cooking Archive

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

The lids can be made or bought from your local health food store. If they don’t sell them, you can always purchase a lid from Sprout People. I use a three-tray Biosta sprouter. It holds the perfect amount of water in each try and has a large yield. The downside is that it takes up more counter space than using a jar but probably not more once you factor that you can grow three different types of sprouts at once.Sprouts are said to be the most nutrient dense food and they are highly digestible. These are two reasons why they are promoted by advocates of raw food diets. Curious about what the nutritional value of sprouts actually is? Here’s a table of some of the most common sprouts folks like to eat. Nutritional data is from the USDA.

Safety

There are some health concerns associated with eating sprouts that can be easily avoided.

• Toxins: Some legumes contain toxins that is reduced during the process of soaking, sprouting and cooking. If you are eating sprouted legumes raw, it’s best to limit the amount to 20 oz or less a day which is still quite a bit.
• Phototoxic: If you each large quantities of sprouted buckwheat, you may become sensitive to light. See an article by Gilles Arbour for more information.
• Salmonella and E. coli O157: Some people believe if you sprout your own seeds, you won’t have to deal with these issues but that’s not true. If the bacteria are present in or on seed, they can grow to high levels even under clean conditions. If this is of concern to you, do not eat the sprouts raw.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Egg Substitutes

The first thing to determine in your recipes is whether the egg is being used for binding, leavening (lift & lightness), and/or taste. Once you’ve determine that, you’ll have an easier time of determining a replacer.Here’s a table of egg replacers in baking that I’ve tried. One of my favorites is using soy lecithin. All entries below equal 1 whole egg. Other egg replacers are noted below the table.

Other substitutions for eggs:

• Egg Whites: Mix 1 T agar agar powder with 1 T water, whip and chill. Whip again.
  

  N.B.: I’m not a fan of powdered agar agar. While it does have 5x the gelling powder of flakes & bars, it’s also highly processed and tends to leave a bad taste in the finished dish. Whenever possible, I use bars or flakes instead but I have not have much luck in that regard in replacing egg whites.

• “Egg” Salad or Scrambled “Eggs”: Use 1/4 c cubed firm tofu or 1/4 c okara per egg in the recipe.

Dairy Substitutes

I’ve found that dairy substitutes are much easier to make than egg.

This post has also been made into a separate page on BlueDogBlog.com. It’s a question that I’m frequently asked by both vegans and people with allergies so I wanted to make it as easy as possible to find.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Organic Produce

We’re often told that we should buy organic whenever possible, for both our own and the earth’s health. I once read that organic produce costs 150% more on average than non-organic produce in the Greater Seattle area. This makes it too costly for many to buy organic. Instead of giving up, be smart about what you purchase. Earth Easy has a list of which produce contains the highest and lowest levels of pesticides. They also provide a list of possible substitutes if you can’t find or afford organic for the produce on your grocery list. Another list is available from Environmental Working Group. They have a free wallet-sized list that you can carry with you when you shop or a grocery bag you can purchase that has the list on it.There is a definite difference in taste between organic and non-organic produce. The flavor is more intense. I find that I feel much better when I eat as much organic as possible, too, but YMMV.

Rebecca Novelli’s Lentil Soup

This soup is great when you are all stuffed up. The heat from the jalapenoes (or Anaheim’s for less intense heat) really clears out your sinuses! Garlic is also supposed to help with infections, especially chest problems. The soup is a pretty peach color and has a chowder consistency. It tastes wonderful served with mustard rye bread (recipe below). Makes 6 servings.

Ingredients

• 2 c uncooked red lentils
• 8 c water (6 if using a pressure cooker)
• 1 large Sweet Vidalia onion
• 1 large carrot
• 1 large celery stock
• 1 large potato
• 2-4 jalapeno peppers (1-2 Anaheim for less heat)
• 4-5 cloves of garlic, minced
• 2 bay leaves
• Freshly ground salt & pepper to taste
• Balsamic vinegar

Directions

1. Pick over lentils and wash. Put aside.
2. In a food processor, shred the onion, carrot, celery, potato and jalapeno peppers.
3. Place the shredded vegetables in a soup pot.
4. Place the 2 cups of uncooked lentils on top of the vegetables.
5. Pour in the water.
6. Add the garlic, bay leaves, salt & pepper.
7. Cook until the lentils have broken down and the soup has the correct consistency. (Approximately 1 hour on the stove top or 5-6 minutes high pressure with a pressure cooker)

Serve with a drop or two of Balsamic vinegar on top of each bowl of soup.

Tofu & Spinach Soup

This is a simple, tasty soup — especially when you’re not feeling well.Makes 4 servings.

Ingredients

• 2 oz bean thread noodles
• 1.5 lbs fresh spinach (or one package of prewashed fresh spinach)
• 8 oz soft tofu
• 4 c vegetable broth
• 2 T light soy sauce
• 3 T rice wine
• 2 t date sugar
• 1/2 t salt

Directions

1. Soak the bean thread noodles in a large bowl of warm water for 15 minutes.
2. While the bean thread noodles are soaking, put the vegetable broth in a saucepan and bring to a simmer.
3. Remove the stalks from the spinach and wash the leaves. Be sure to wash away all of the dirt or your soup will be gritty.
4. Cut the tofu into 1-in cubes.
5. By now the noodles should be soft. Drain the noodles, discarding the water, and cut them into 3-in lengths using a knife.
6. Add the noodles to the vegetable broth and let it simmer for 2 minutes.
7. Add the spinach, light soy sauce, rice wine, date sugar, and salt and let it simmer for another 2 minutes.
8. Add the tofu, taking care not to break the cubes, and let it simmer for 2 more minutes until the tofu is heated through.

Serve immediately.

Mustard Rye Bread

This is a moist, spicy bread that goes well with Rebecca Novelli’s Lentil Soup.Makes 1 large loaf.

Ingredients

• 1.5 c water
• 2T flaxseed ground and blended with 6T of water
• 1T and 1t canola oil
• 2T honey
• 1/4 c country dijon mustard
• 2/3 t salt
• 1 t mustard seeds
• 2 t caraway seeds
• 2 t fennel seeds
• 2-4T vital wheat gluten
• 1 c freshly ground rye flour
• 4 c freshly ground whole wheat flour (hard red wheat)
• 2.5 t yeast

Directions

For a bread machine, place the ingredients in the order prefered by your machine and press start.If doing it by hand:

1. Preheat the oven to 350ºF.
2. Warm a cup by rinsing it with warm tap water and then measure 1/2 c warm water into it. The water should be 110º (just warm to touch). Sprinkle yeast into the water while stirring with a spoon until it is completely dissolved. Set aside.
3. Measure the dry ingredients (whole wheat and rye flours, vital wheat gluten, salt, mustard seed, caraway seed, and fennel seed) into a bowlmaking a well in the center.
4. Mix the remainder of the water, honey, canola oil, flaxseed mixture, and country dijon mustard in a separate bowl and then pour it into the well in the dry mixture.
5. Pour the yeast mixture on top of this.
6. Stir the liquid mixtures into the flour mixtures until you’ve created a soft, sticky dough.
7. Adjust the dough as necessary, adding more flour or more water until you’ve reached the correct consistency.
8. Knead the dough by hand or in your food processor.
9. Let the dough rise for 1.5-2 hours.
10. Deflate the dough and let it rise again for another hour.
11. Shape the dough and place it in a greased loaf pan. Let it rise for another 30-45 minutes.
12. Bake the bread checking at 30 minutes. Most breads take 60 minutes to bake but depending upon your oven, you may need to lower the temperature (if the crust is too brown) or bake for less time.

After the bread has finished baking, removing from the pan and let it cool before slicing.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Liquid Laundry Detergent Recipe

Ingredients & Tools

• 4 cups tap water and 3 gallons hot tap water
• 1 bar Castile or Marseille soap, grated
• 1 cup Sodium Carbonate (aka washing soda or soda ash)
• 1 cup Borax
• 5 Gallon Bucket with lid
• Old laundry bottles washed out well, enough to store 3 gallons of the final product
• 1 long wooden spoons
• Pair of rubber gloves (optional)

Directions

1. Bring 4 cups of water almost to a boil (do not let it boil).
2. Turn down the heat to low and stir in the grated soap with the wooden spoon. Congratulations, you’ve made very soapy water.
3. Pour the 3 gallons of hot tap water into the 5 gallon bucket.
4. Add the very soapy water and stir for about 5 minutes with the wooden spoon.
5. Add the sodium carbonate and continue stirring for 2 minutes.
6. Add the borax and continue stirring for another 2 minutes.
7. Cover the bucket with the lid and let it sit overnight (about 24 hours).
8. Mixture will thicken and will be a slightly lighter shade of whatever color the soap was that you used. Pour into the empty laundry detergent bottles for storage.
9. Use 1/2 cup of mixture per load for a total of 48 loads.

I prefer to use filtered tap water for this recipe but you don’t have to.You can use any kind of soap that you’d like. I prefer all vegetable soaps since I’m vegetarian plus I try to buy soaps that are handmade locally (check out the PCC). I’m told that milk-based and tallow soaps work well too. If you use Fels Naptha, you should use only 1/3 bar instead of a whole bar due to its size. Sodium Carbonate (Washing Soda) and Borax can be found in the laundry section of the grocery store. Both can be used for cleaning around the house and their boxes can be recycled. By making your own detergent, you help cut down on the fossil fuel needed to make commercial laundry detergent and its packaging. Two boxes of Sodium Carbonate and one box of Borax will make about 12 recipes (a total of 576 loads)!

Powdered Laundry Detergent Recipe

Ingredients & Tools

• 2 cups Castile or Marseille soap, grated
• 1 cup Sodium Carbonate (aka washing soda or soda ash)
• 1 cup Borax
• 1 quart container with lid
• Rubber gloves (optional)

Directions

1. Mix all ingredients and place it a container with a lid.
2. For light load, use 1 T. For heavy or very soiled load, use 2 T.

Like the liquid version, you can use any kind of soap that you’d like. You can also use 2 cups of soap flakes such as Ivory Snow those of you interested in making vegan/vegetarian products should avoid this.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

• Terrapass Energy Tip #4
• Project Laundry List

This isn’t something you have to wait for good weather to do. I live in a wet part of the US and I put my Mrs. Pegg’s handy line up in my living room or bathroom when I dry my clothes. For those of you who need to use a humidifier during dry times of the year, the moisture from the clothes drying in the house may eliminate the need. And during the summer, the cool moisture may help lower the overall temp in the house. For those of you working, hang your clothes before you go to bed at night to wake-up to wrinkle-free, dry clothes or hand them before you go to work to come home to the same. It’s a way to help the environment and your pocket book with little effort.

Vinegar

Looking for an environmentally friendly way of softening your clothes? Try adding 1/2-1 cup of white distilled vinegar to your rinse cycle. No joke! It does a great job of not only softening your clothes but also breaking down laundry detergent. Once vinegar dries that “vinegary” smell is gone too so you needn’t worry about smelling like a salad all day. This is also a great way for folks with sensitivities to detergents to keep their clothes nice and soft.Looking for other ways to use vinegar in the laundry or around the house? Check out The Vinegar Institute‘s Uses & Tips.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Did you know that you can save 2.675 pounds of CO2 for each day you eat vegetarian for every meal? Vegetarians save 976.375 pounds of CO2 a year. Don’t think you could do it every day? Not a problem! If you were to eat vegetarian meals all day once a week, you’d save 139.1 pounds of CO2 a year and if you were to eat one vegetarian meal a day, you’d save 325.4 pounds of CO2 a year (based on 3 meals a day)! No cheating and doubling up on meat with your next meal.

It’s not always easy to find good vegan desserts. The “ice creams” tend to be chalky and the pastries tend to be dry. I have found four wonderful cookbooks that give lots of great tips for getting around the problem:

• Vegan Cupcakes Take Over the World by Isa Chandra Moskowitz and Terry Hope Romero
• More Great Good Dairy-free Desserts by Fran Costigan
• The Joy of Vegan Baking by Colleen Patrick-Goudreau
• Sinfully Vegan by Lois Dieterly
• Vice Cream by Jeff Rogers

So no more excuses about eating vegetarian meals! You help yourself and the world as an extra bonus.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

N.B.: In case someone has suggested ProGurt to you, it is NOT vegan so if you’re after something completely dairy-free, this isn’t it. From their website AIRY AND GLUTEN FREE: The highest quality and pure LAB cultures are used in this formula. The yogurt strains are recognized to have exposure to some dairy peptones (broken down molecular structures) during their fermentation. The final culture is filtered and has less then detectable levels of dairy proteins. Considered dairy-free based on the standards established in the nutritional industry. No gluten containing ingredients are used in the production of this product.

Soy Yogurt

Ingredients

• 1 liter freshly made plain soy milk using 1/2 organic soybeans with water to the halfway mark of the Soya Power*
• Pinch of salt (for the soy milk)
• 1-2 T sweetener (honey, agave, maple syrup, sucanet, etc.)
• 1 t New Chapter All-Flora (vegan)
• 1 t Solaray Multidophilus Powder (vegan)
• Agar Agar bar

* Store bought plain soy milk can be used instead. If you use store bought soy milk, be sure to bring it to a boil in the microwaveOther items to have on hand:

• 1-2 liter glass container for the soy milk
• Gold coffee filter
• Salton Yogurt Maker
• Plate, spoon or 2, whisk, food thermometer, measuring spoons, small glass bowl
• Boiling water

Directions

1. First, you need to create a sterile environment. Use the boiling water and pour it into the liter glass container, through the gold coffee filter, and over the spoons, whisk, plate, the measuring spoons, the food thermometer and the internal Salton container & lid. You don’t want to mix your own bacteria into this process! I normally sterilize the plate first and put all of the other objects on top of it except the glass container which will sit to the side.
2. Place 1/4-1 bar of Agar Agar in the small glass bowl and pour enough boiling water over it to soak it through. It shouldn’t take much water to do this.
3. Next pour the soy milk from the Soya Power through the gold coffee filter into the glass container. If you took the skins off the soybeans before making the soy milk, this may not be necessary. I usually do both to ensure a very smooth milk.
4. Add the pinch of salt. Animal milk has sodium in it naturally so you need to add in a little to the soy milk.
5. Add the sweetener of your choice. Animal milk again has the necessary sweeteners built in so it’s important to add your own or the probiotics will have nothing to eat. The sweetener that you choose will greatly change the taste of your soy milk.
6. Plug the Salton Yogurt Maker in. You are allowing it to heat up while you get the rest of it together.
7. Pour the soy milk into the internal Salton Yogurt container that is sitting on the plate. Place the food thermometer in the Salton Yogurt container. I usually use the clip to attach the thermometer to the side of the container so I can see the temperature drop.
8. Wash your hands thoroughly. Then squeeze out the Agar Agar and rip it into tiny pieces placing them in the soy milk mixture in the Salton Yogurt container.
9. Let the temperature drop to 50-55ºC (122-130ºF). While you are waiting for the temperature to drop, occasionally whisk the soymilk mixture to keep the agar for gelling to quickly.
10. Once the temperature has dropped to the desired range, stir in the probiotic powders. Do not put the probiotic powders in the soy milk mixture if the temperature is greater than 55ºC. Anything hotter will kill the bacteria. The best temperature for incubation is 50ºC.
11. Place the lid on the container and put it in the Salton Yogurt Maker. Let it sit for 6-8 hours, checking at the 5 hour mark and each hour beyond for tartness and gelling. When the yogurt reaches your desired tartness and gell, unplug the Salton Yogurt maker and place the yogurt in container to put in the refrigerator.

Soy Labneh

If you’re interested in making labneh (a Middle Eastern cheese), you’ll need either unbleached cheese cloth or a Donvier cheese maker. If you are using the cheese cloth, place it inside a strainer that sits over a bowl. Put the yogurt inside the cheese cloth and wring out the initial liquid. Tie the cheese cloth putting it back in the strainer in the bowl and place all of it in the refrigerator. Check on it 1-2 hours later and all of the liquid should have drained leaving you with soy cheese! It’s even easier with a Donvier cheese maker. Simply put the yogurt inside and check on it 1-2 hours later. Labneh tastes wonderful on bread, crackers, and fruit. You can use it on bagels in the morning or in place of recipes that call for cream cheese.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Phantom Load

Appliances in my house that have phantom load:

• VCR
• DVR
• DVD player
• TV
• Xbox
• Air filters
• Security system
• Light wall plates (mine has lights on it to indicate dimming level)
• Microwave
• Stove
• Refrigerator
• Bread machine
• Rice cooker
• Washing machine
• Dryer
• Computers
• Printers
• Treadmill
• Chargers — cell phone, tooth brush, iPod, etc.
• Garage door opener
• Doorbell

In addition to these, be sure to check your toaster, toaster oven, coffee machine, hair dryer.

Other Ideas

Here are some other easy ways that you can lower your bills without much cost:

• Unplug appliances you are not using from the wall. You can put them on a power strip but keep in mind that some of them also have phantom load.
• Lower your thermostat in the winter and raise it in the summer! For every 1 degree you lower your thermostat in the fall/winter or raise it in the spring/summer, you’ll save 2% of your energy costs. In addition, consider lowering your heat 5-10 degrees while you sleep.
• Wash & rinse clothes in cold water. 85-90% of energy use in washing clothes is spent on heating the water and 10-15% is used to run the washing machine.
• Air dry your clothes. Not only does it save energy (5-10% of the average electric bill is from the clothes dryer) but your clothes will last longer. I use Mrs. Pegg’s Handy Line in the house and am very happy with it.
• Don’t run the dishwasher’s dry cycle. Instead, open the door and let the dishes air dry.
• Turn down the water temperature for your dishwasher to 120ºF if you have a separate heating tank otherwise turn down your water heater to 120ºF. The average home runs it at 150ºF.
• Run only full loads in the dishwasher and the washing machine.
• Insulate your attic, walls and crawl space. 10-50% of a home’s energy loss is through improper insulation.
• Plug up holes and put draft dodgers at doors; this can save up to 10% of energy costs.
• Change your shower head to low flow. The new ones don’t trickle! They have great pressure unlike their predecessors. The less water that flows through, the more you save on both water and heating it.
• Don’t put warm food in the fridge. Allow it to cool down first. It takes more energy to keep the fridge at a constant temperature when you put hot food in than if you were to put in room temperature food. Also, don’t overfill the fridge and block airflow. Remember to clean the grill and grate every three months and set the temperature for only as cold as you need and don’t go below.
• Use compact fluorescent light bulbs. Dimmable and 3-way CF bulbs are available so no excuses! 11% of the average electric bill comes from lighting.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.

©2012 Blue Dog's Blog. All Rights Reserved.