Thanks for the article, Scott. I think it would be productive to compare it to the active portions of the ADA of 1990 as it stands currently. What has people with disabilities (PWD) in an uproar are the new guidelines by the the Obama administration Department of Justice without any real public notice or public input. I am not aware of any disability groups who support the companionship of service animals that supported the new guidelines to the ADA of 1990 which was passed by President Bush I see http://goo.gl/s4n8j.

Note that these guidelines by the DoJ are just that...Guidelines!

In this new version, the guidelines narrow the types of animals to be only dogs and miniature horses which most people have not seen regularly.

What people should know is that these "changes" are purely guidelines and are not required to be adhered to by the federal government, states, counties and cities as noted in an analysis by Madeline Bernstein is the President/CEO of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Los Angeles (spcaLA) in the Technorati article http://goo.gl/34fDk.

Finally some common sense.

Though the change in ADA regulations is a real one, your article is misleading (to clarify, in March of 2011 the ADA changes are no longer guidelines but in fact part of the ADA, so under the ADA service animals ARE ONLY trained dogs or miniature horses).

First, housing is not covered by the ADA definition. Both the federal FHAA and California FEHA support accommodations for a prescribed emotional support animal. Let alone the fact that this was supported in a appeals court case in CA (see Auburn Woods v. FEHC), people still have the right to have their emotional support animals in their homes with them regardless of pet policies etc. and so long as their animals follow some basic behavioral guidelines that we expect from animals.

Second, the California government department that oversees the administration of most disability related housing issues, the DFEH, also oversees the enforcement of the Unruh Act. The Unruh Act, CA Civil Code Section 52, outlaws all discrimination against a broad spectrum of protected classes by any business whatsoever. Since the DFEH has plenty of public references including some YouTube videos saying that they generally regard "emotional support" animals as service animals, it may be reasonable to think that the body responsible for enforcing Unruh is likely to support allowing all prescribed support and service in public entities and accommodations. We will likely have some movement in this area broadening the definition of service animal in California to include emotional support animals as well (we will just have to wait for the DFEH to get over their changes that happened when Brown became governor).

Additionally, for those of you in San Francisco, the Police Code Article 33 section 3305 outlaws discrimination in all public accommodations (businesses) done directly or indirectly, and has language supporting the application of reasonable accommodations (much like the housing laws) supporting the fact that even "emotional support" animals are allowed in all public accommodations in San Francisco. I do not believe this has been tested, but I already have a call into the Mayors Office on Disability on this one.

We will have to wait and see what the Health Code implications are, but I feel that protection of disabled people's rights will trump a minute concern that leashed or controlled animals will pose a public health threat (a myth that we have battling for a long time) even in a restaurant. Of course people need to properly control their animals in public and make sure that they are not posing problems. The fact that your dog, cat or monkey is allowed into certain public places does not give them a pass to do whatever they want. Likewise, a business may request that a misbehaved animal leave their establishment.

As someone who depends on a dog to pull my wheelchair, pick up everything I drop, help me in the bathroom and get my wheelchar in and out of my car, I have a couple things to add. First off, it is the law now that only dogs (and ponys) are service animals. It was done without proper input from those most impacted. Birds have an IQ close to that of a human toddler. Other primates can be trained to do what even the smartest dog can't because they don't have thumbs. I would march or rather roll)on Washington in support of my cohorts that depend on non-dog animals. It is hard enough out here without the laws changing to make things harder.

There are people who abuse the service animal portion of the ADA by misrepresenting their pet as one. Everytime someone does that, it makes it that much more difficult for those of us that depend on our partners. Shame on anyone who does that. If they want to alter laws to cut down on it, how about some jail time for impersonating the disabled? Just having a law like that would deter most people. My own brother thinks I'm "lucky" because I get the best parking spaces and I get to take my dog everywhere. I tell him to have someone drive him head on into a van and he can have these "priviledges" too!

Almost everyday, I have to deal with problems because of my dog. Just today I was told by the university I attend, that my dog needs to dress "more professionally" and they would prefer I not let anyone pet her in public areas. This was the third time this semester I was summoned to the Dean's office and asked for certification papers. I was refused a cab in Washington D.C. I was refused service in a restaurant in Pennsylvania. My own aunt disinvited me to a baby shower over my dog. Physical therapists have politely asked that I not bring my dog "for the safety of the other people in the gym". A Bureau of Worker's Compensation doctor,(supposedly qualified to decide if I'm still disabled)refused to examine me unless the dog waited outside! There is an epidemic of stupidity when it comes to service animals.

Those of us that truly depend on our animal partners take having our animal under control very seriously. If my dog is out of control, she isn't much help to me. I'm not sure if things have run amuck with people bringing their animals all over the place in San Francisco or not. I suspect not. Here in Ohio, we are still pretty few and far between. As long as the animal is controlled, service or not, what harm can it do? Even the ADA doesn't allow for out of control animals. I think we can give people the benefit of the doubt.

This is ridiculous. Monkeys have been used to assist paraplegics and quadriplegics for years and the absolute gold standard of balance assistance animals is the small donkey. Like other equines, the donkey is resistive, and so leans into you when you lean into it instead of reacting like a dog and moving away. Donkeys require less feed, are generally healthier, and are far easier to maintain than miniature horses. A donkey is also more intelligent, calmer, and more emotionally stable than a miniature horse.

The first two paragraphs apply nationally:

Under the FHA, housing entities must admit any type of “assistance animal”, a term which includes service animals as well as comfort animals or emotional support animals.

Under the ACAA, U.S. air carriers and their foreign partners must allow emotional support animals in the cabin if requested.

Although the ADA changed their definition, SF County is still adhering to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which includes a broader definition. At this point in time, it's unclear when and if SF county will revise to ADA definitions.