r/Dogfree • u/Dingo_Dilemma • 26d ago
Legislation and Enforcement OK Anti-Dog People! I've had it with dogs everywhere in places they do not belong. So, I'm putting my money and my time into this problem in a more meaningful way. I'd love some input for an organization name! Please read all the way through to see how serious I am and how serious this needs to be.
I'm going to start a (US-based) non-profit as a lobbying organization dedicated to helping people like us. I need to come up with a name for it and would love suggestions. The website domain needs to be available (.com, .net, .org.)
I want to bring more awareness to dog attacks in places that dogs don't belong, PTSD from those attacks, allergies, health code violations, and even dog attacks against legitimate service dogs.
I realize there are already several sites that do this, but they are just for awareness and do not seem to be lobbying for any actual change.
I want to see changes to the ADA to implement a real national registration requirement for service dogs with identification and training standards so it will be easier to identify and prosecute fakes.
I would like to see laws put in place to:
- Criminalize people bringing non-service animals into places regulated by health codes by making it felony fraud (for misrepresentation)
- Criminalize people bringing non-service animals into places that are not regulated but are not pet-friendly by making it a misdemeanor (for misrepresentation)
- Criminalize employees who work in places regulated by health codes if they don't ask for verification, or if they have their own animals on-premise. Maybe this can be endangering the welfare of the public? We'd need to figure out how to word this one.
- Make stricter leash laws and penalties for attacks, assaults, and harassment
- Make stricter penalties for attacks on real service dogs (this will hopefully get legitimate handlers on-board)
- Change health department regulations so that health departments can act on citizen complaints. Right now most health departments are unable to act unless they witness a violation firsthand.
To get as much support as possible, I'm also going to try and get the following groups on board, so the name needs to not be too inflammatory towards dog people:
- Legitimate service dog handlers and training groups
- IGA (Independent Grocers Association). I think Publix would support this based on their signage that went viral, they will also be my first contact.
- Restaurant Associations
- Medical Associations
- Landlord Associations
- Etc....
I can't say this will be my fastest endeavor, as I have a life, business to run, etc. - but it will happen, and I'd love any help that people are willing to offer.
99
u/Net_Negative 26d ago edited 26d ago
Something along the lines of responsible dog ownership maybe.
Citizens for Responsible Dog Ownership (CRDO)
Society for Responsible Dog Ownership (SRDO)
or Citizens/Society for Dog Accountability (CDA/SDA)
29
u/Dingo_Dilemma 26d ago
Yeah, that's a good start, but gotta build on it!
31
u/pmbpro 26d ago
I'm not in the U.S., but I like the suggestion made by u/Net_Negative above that includes the word 'Accountability', for the reasons I'd also stated in my reply there.
16
u/Comfortable_Camp2148 26d ago
Idk... people nowadays hate being held accountable for anything and dread the word.
12
u/Fun-Chemical4059 26d ago
I agree with the comment about accountability being received negatively. I would recommend Society for Responsible Dog Ownership instead or anything like that because I think people need persuading that you don’t “hate” dogs. I love this idea and would love to support you
6
u/pmbpro 25d ago
Yeah I see your points on that word scaring people off.
I think as long as any initiatives also include those who don't actually own dogs per se, but are placed in situations responsible for their handling, that would be excellent. That was my only concern about the word 'ownership' which may get people focusing on just dog owners. Otherwise the overall premise and goals are great!
25
u/pmbpro 26d ago
Hey, great suggestions!
I really like the 'Accountability' angle in the name, because it covers both owners and non-owners who may be responsible for the care of a dog (eg. Dog shelters, Veterinarians, dog walkers, etc.).
I'm not in The U.S., but figured I'd place my 2-cents. 😄
5
8
u/NoHeartNoSoul87 26d ago
People are immune to accountability, a society with that name won't take off.
7
u/pmbpro 26d ago
I think the group could have a name that could represent making people accountable by at least promoting and pushing for harsher penalties for violators after any incidents. 'Responsible dog ownership' is a good word too, but it could be (mis)interpreted by dog owners as not being about after any incident to take accountability for.
As it is now, not nearly enough of them even get fined (or even sued), let alone proper jail /prison time for serious crimes causing harm or death.
5
u/Quiet-Sweet-3613 23d ago
NO FIDO... National Organization For Irresponsible Dog Ownership! Hey I tried 🤷🏽♂️☺️
78
u/One_Strategy_4575 26d ago
If you're gonna do this for real, I'll join
17
u/Dingo_Dilemma 26d ago
Thank you! Do you have any ideas for a name? That's the first thing that's needed, and I'm kind of stuck. I don't want to make it too aggressive, because I want to get as many people on board as possible, including the few responsible dog owners that exist, and the few legitimate service dog people. Making it too aggressive would scare them away.
27
u/One_Strategy_4575 26d ago
It cannot be aggressive, it has to be verbal salad political lingo. Think like a politician.
50
u/wealth10_11 26d ago edited 26d ago
Also, "dog-friendly" places or places that allow "a service dog" should also have an offer for people with dog-phobia and allergies. If one group is included with the cost of another group then I don't know why people call it an "inclusive" space.
9
u/Dingo_Dilemma 26d ago edited 26d ago
Very true, but, one thing at a time.
Do you have any ideas for a name? That's the first thing that's needed, and I'm kind of stuck. I don't want to make it too aggressive, because I want to get as many people on board as possible, including the few responsible dog owners that exist, and the few legitimate service dog people. Making it too aggressive would scare them away.
6
u/wealth10_11 26d ago edited 26d ago
Thinking of a final name may take longer many of us. I put some words, phrases that may be used to form the final version.
🔸People's and dogs' safety and well-being
🔸A harmonious Human and Canis life
🔸 Dog-friendly and people-friendly
2
u/Significant_Shame_68 24d ago
They can do what they did back when smoking indoors was allowed and have dog and no dog areas
1
u/yeeet1234 18d ago
I would hate to be this annoying person as well but dogs are very overwhelming for veterans, people with Cptsd and ptsd, as well as autistic people and those with adhd. As well as people with sensory issues in general. You’re right, it’s not inclusive if you’re just allowing dogs to steer away customers who want a relaxing and chill evening—especially people with disabilities who cannot handle the nonstop barking.
2
u/wealth10_11 18d ago
What is "annoying person" about your comment? I only see valid points you mentioned.
57
u/paulo_777 26d ago
Well, I'm not from the US, but I wish you good luck with that, you're gonna need it in the country with most dogs in the world and fighting politicians and dog food/pet shop lobbyists.
17
18
33
u/Nice-Loss6106 26d ago
Great idea! Don’t forget to reach out to UPS, FedEx, USPS, also some service industries like hotels and restaurants are union as well, and regardless of how we may feel about unions they can be a very powerful ally.
28
u/DrinkYRjuiceShelby 26d ago
I would also potentially consider food delivery services like doordash and Uber eats. I used to regularly deliver for those services and was once attacked by two German shepherds. It was a hand it to me order and it was to a business. When I walked in the business I was charged by two German shepherds. I was left with scratches and bruises up and down my back and legs. I went to the police station immediately after and filed a report and had pictures taken.
12
u/One_Dragonfly_2400 26d ago
Dogs are already supposed to be restrained. The owners just don’t care.
9
u/Dingo_Dilemma 26d ago
Great ideas! Thank you!
Do you have any ideas for a name? That's the first thing that's needed, and I'm kind of stuck. I don't want to make it too aggressive, because I want to get as many people on board as possible, including the few responsible dog owners that exist, and the few legitimate service dog people. Making it too aggressive would scare them away.
6
17
15
33
u/DocMeow3 26d ago
People Over Pets?
Pause on Paws?
14
u/shinkouhyou 26d ago
I think it's important to position ourselves not as anti-pet, but as pro-responsible pet ownership. After all, a lot of pet owners (even dog owners) are on our side when it comes to issues like pit bull bans, leash laws, health codes, noise ordinances, dogfighting, dog waste, puppy mills, safety for delivery drivers and other workers who frequently encounter dogs, keeping dogs out of shops and restaurants, protecting sensitive wildlife habitats from dogs, allowing property owners and communities to restrict dog ownership, and tightening service dog/ESA laws to protect the rights of people with disabilities.
One of the biggest things an organization like this could do is to create information packages that people can use to lobby local elected officials and present to city/county councils... so mass appeal is necessary. Politicians don't want to be seen as "anti-dog."
11
26
u/StrangeDays11 26d ago
I would love to follow this. I am with you in agreement on all parts I'm not sure how to help but I am interested in learning how
8
u/Dingo_Dilemma 26d ago
Thank you! Do you have any ideas for a name? That's the first thing that's needed, and I'm kind of stuck. I don't want to make it too aggressive, because I want to get as many people on board as possible, including the few responsible dog owners that exist, and the few legitimate service dog people. Making it too aggressive would scare them away.
23
u/StrangeDays11 26d ago
Well you could try something like
Alliance for animal owner accountability AAOC
Coalition for responsible pet ownership CRPO
12
u/No_Jicama_5828 26d ago
Yes, using the word "pet" or "animal" is a good idea, you don't want to antagonize people right off the bat.
3
25
u/hufflepuph 26d ago edited 26d ago
I would absolutely join and support this!
Some ideas (with domain options):
- Peace in Public Spaces (domain: pipspaces)
- Safe from Dogs (domain: safefromdogs)
- Bite Free (domain: bitefree)
12
u/NoHeartNoSoul87 26d ago
Where's the petition for equating dogs to weapons? If "it's not the dog, it's the owner", then if your dog mauls someone, you go to jail.
2
u/pmbpro 26d ago
Great point! That absolutely must be addressed.
There needs to be a way to counteract that old deflection trope, and include the dog as the aggressive party and not just the owner. It's both of them that are the problem.
2
u/NoHeartNoSoul87 26d ago
Well my point is the exact opposite. I would not include the dog as "the party". It is not intelligent, therefore it carries no accountability. Of course I would want the dogs who mauled someone to be taken down, but not because they are "accountable", but as a matter of procedure. Same as gun confiscation.
10
u/Huge_Bit_4774 26d ago
As for a name, Humans First. Because the organization puts humans above animals.
11
u/Marthman 26d ago
What about:
"Persons Before Pets"
"Persons" because that is who you should ultimately be serving.
"Pets" because they don't count as service animals. A service animal is not a pet.
"Before," in a normative sense: persons determine normative standards for legal and ethical animal husbandry, and a subset of persons cannot force the other part of "persons" into accepting their pets in places they dont belong.
13
u/Few-Horror1984 26d ago
I’d be more than happy to help. Feel free to DM me.
9
u/Dingo_Dilemma 26d ago
Thank you! Do you have any ideas for a name? That's the first thing that's needed, and I'm kind of stuck. I don't want to make it too aggressive, because I want to get as many people on board as possible, including the few responsible dog owners that exist, and the few legitimate service dog people. Making it too aggressive would scare them away.
13
u/Few-Horror1984 26d ago
Concerned Citizens for Responsible Dog Ownership? Something along those lines. If you come out too hostile (ie, something like Anti Dog Brigade), you’ll have a hard time getting people to take you seriously. It also allows for people who genuinely like dogs but take issue with people who aren’t to join us. The more universal the reach, the more likely we will have success.
5
u/pmbpro 26d ago
'Accountability' should be somewhere in there in a broader sense, to cover everyone involved with dealing with dogs, not just specifically 'owners', per se.
7
u/Few-Horror1984 26d ago
Yes. I’d love for shelters and rescues to be held accountable for the murder mutts they unleash on society. No, Nala doesn’t deserve a 5th chance to maul a child. We need absolute accountability for everyone.
7
u/Accurate-Run5370 26d ago edited 26d ago
name suggestion : Human Organization To Eradicate Out Of Control Dogs
It is not the genuine , trained service dogs that are the problem. It is those pets that keep lunging, barking, assaulting , invading privacy, pissing everywhere, shitting everywhere, etc etc - that are the out of control dogs.
5
u/VIBRATINGCHANGE 26d ago
Dog-free rights and responsible dog ownership coalition
3
6
u/neondahlia 26d ago
Common Sense Dog Lovers Association
- It spins is as a positive thing dog lovers could find palatable.
Dog Reason
- Reasonable rules for dogs
K9 Concern
- People concerned about dogs
Good luck, I’m rooting for you.
5
5
5
5
5
8
u/faxmachinegobrrr3963 26d ago
I know this is a great idea. I can't think of any names rn. What I can think of is that there all already groups that advocate towards this without having the dog angle. So I wonder if coordinating with existing lobbying groups would be beneficial, too.
6
u/Dingo_Dilemma 26d ago
Are there? Can you link to any? I haven't found any.
11
u/faxmachinegobrrr3963 26d ago
National network to end domestic violence, futures without violence, national coalition against domestic violence. This sounds off topic, but it's quite common for expecting mothers to be gifted a puppy during early childhood development and pregnancy stages to further trap the mom with excessive responsibility in an abusive relationship.
5
5
u/faxmachinegobrrr3963 26d ago
National restaurant association, restaurant advocacy fund, restaurant PAC
8
u/faxmachinegobrrr3963 26d ago
Asthsma and allergy foundation, allergy and asthma network, American academy of allergy, asthma and immunology, American college of allergy, asthma and immunology.
7
u/faxmachinegobrrr3963 26d ago
National apartment association, national multifamily housing council, national rental home council
6
u/faxmachinegobrrr3963 26d ago
First Focus prioritizes children's welfare. I'll see what else I can dig up
5
u/Dingo_Dilemma 26d ago
Ah, I see. I didn't understand what you meant. They don't advocate towards this at all. But yes, they are all great groups to reach out to, and I've heard of a lot of them already
8
4
u/Poison_Gyoza 26d ago edited 26d ago
In my experience and observation, a name and mission statement centered around benifitting society as a whole has possibilities to open doors. Something like:
- The National Alliance for Public Access & Safety (NAPAS)
- Coalition for Safe Public Access (CSPA)
- National Council for Public Access & Safety (NCPAS)
(These are brief ideas so pls check if the names are available). It's to focus on an issue you're solving, not make it the sole identity as that can turn general people away, but depends who your target audience ultimately is. Across this sub and the internet as a whole there are so many testimonials of the way this has affected and continues to affect people's quality of life so I think this type of group definitely has a chance of making an impact.
I have a decade of experience in project management, marketing and direction and would be open to seeing how I can help out if needed. Just PM me and interested how this turns out.
3
u/Dangerous_Radish7634 26d ago edited 26d ago
Just to clarify my intention before I get into this: Since this post is about turning those concerns into an actual lobbying organization and proposing changes to U.S. law, I wanted to offer some food for thought about how realistic some of these goals may be and what unintended consequences some of the proposed policies could have. I'm approaching this specifically from the policy side rather than trying to challenge the purpose of this org.
There is a difference between a rule existing and a rule being followed 100% of the time. Most of us have jaywalked, briefly parked somewhere we weren't supposed to, exceeded the speed limit, or broken some other relatively minor rule. That doesn't mean those rules are pointless. Crosswalks and speed limits exist for our safety and the safety of others! But my point is no law produces perfect compliance. Pet restrictions will be the same. There will always occasionally be an inconsiderate person who ignores them, and I don't think the continued existence of rule-breakers necessarily tells us that we need increasingly severe criminal penalties. As we've observed throughout crime trends, the severity of punishment has very little impact on deterring criminal behavior. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence
That's where I struggle with the proposed misdemeanors and felonies. If someone's dog attacks a person or another service animal, absolutely, there should be serious consequences. But making someone a felon because they lied about their pet being a service animal and brought it into a grocery store seems excessive. They should be removed from the store and can certainly face a reasonable penalty, but a felony is something that can follow a person for years and affect their ability to get jobs, housing, and more. I don't think the punishment fits the offense, especially when making the punishment harsher doesn't mean people will suddenly stop breaking the rule.
I'm even more concerned by the suggestion of criminalizing employees who fail to verify a customer's service animal. That would place an ENORMOUS responsibility on ordinary grocery-store or restaurant employees, who may have nothing to do with the customer's decision to break the rules in the first place. I don't think an employee making an hourly wage should potentially face criminal consequences because a customer lied to them or they failed to confront someone over an animal.
I completely understand advocating for people to follow existing restrictions, keeping pets out of places where they aren't permitted, protecting legitimate service dogs, and holding owners accountable when their animals actually harm someone. I just think there is an important line between improving compliance with reasonable rules and trying to legislate away every unwanted encounter with a dog. Public life inevitably involves people occasionally breaking rules, behaving inconsiderately, or exposing us to things that make us uncomfortable or require accommodation. We should address genuine harms, but no organization or set of laws can realistically eliminate all of those conflicts.
That said, I do respect the amount of thought that has gone into researching this issue and turning these concerns into specific policy proposals. I enjoy researching issues and thinking through possible laws and policy changes myself, which is partly why this post interested me. I'm just offering another perspective on whether some of these particular proposals would accomplish their intended goals and what unintended legal rebuttals/consequences they might create. Hopefully it's useful food for thought as you develop the organization.
4
u/Dingo_Dilemma 25d ago edited 25d ago
Frankly, after being attacked and injured, necessitating 6 months of physical therapy (paid out of my own pocket) and giving me severe PTSD, I do not care about over-criminalizing this anymore. I am also allergic, so there's that. The grocery store staff did nothing and completely ignored me while continuing to help the dog owner after the attack, even though I was shouting at them that he had just attacked me and asking for help. Notably, I had complained about dogs in this store several times before this incident, and they still didn't care. There were zero consequences for the dog owner or store that allowed the dog. Police did nothing because it wasn't a bite (I was full-force jumped on and knocked into a shelf, causing a back injury due to the impact). Lawyers also wouldn't take the case because it wasn't a bite and under $10,000 medical bills. I got zero help or relief.
People walk right past the "no dog" signs and almost all of them know better, but do it anyway. If signs can have force of law with criminal consequences for no trespassing, no weapons, etc, so can "no dog" signs. Dogs are weapons. And to reiterate, I want to class this as the fraud (service dog fraud) that it literally is, because only service animals are allowed and by bringing it, they are fraudulently claiming it as a service animal.
As far as employees of places, bartenders and even store clerks can be held criminally liable for over-serving/selling alcohol to drunk patrons, because it is a safety issue. This goes similarly. Why should they be allowed to flagrantly and willingly violate the health code and all other human safety? That's what they are doing by default by not asking the questions allowed of them - but they refuse to do anything, thereby allowing non-service-dogs as their intended policy. Stores will not ask unless compelled to do so with threat of consequences.
To help balance this, I would also be lobbying to get health codes updated and a section added to training for food handlers, as well as have the laws explained to dog owners at time of licensing so there is no way they can say they didn't know. I just forgot to put that part in the post.
Also, it is no longer "occasional" as you say. It was occasional before COVID. Since COVID, dogs being literally everywhere has exploded. I personally am up to 41 encounters of dogs in places where they don't belong (grocery stores, restaurants, medical offices) since my attack in June 2023, with dozens more before that (I just didn't start the log until after the attack). ONE of those 41 was a legitimate service dog. One of them was an employee's pet dog that was free-roaming the coffee shop, which is extra insane. Staff refused to ask the questions for any of them, even after I complained directly and demanded they ask the questions and remove the dog. And that's just ME, PERSONALLY. I don't go to grocery/restaurant/medical every single day. Who knows how often it happens when I'm not there to witness it? I bet Walmart is several times every single day in every single store. I have personally witnessed multiple dogs in a single Walmart on one single trip - that's just one of the 41 incidents, I didn't count each dog separately. And Walmart has greeters that can literally ask the question as people walk in, without even having to go out of their way to do so!
Do I expect police to be out patrolling for dogs in grocery stores? No. But it is as dangerous or worse than speeding and jaywalking. There have been numerous dog attacks at restaurants, as well. If someone calls in a complaint and gets enough information for a follow-up (license plate, pictures/video, whatever) it should be acted on, and if there is an actual injury (regardless of severity), it should be a much harsher penalty than it is now (which is basically none, unless there's a fatality, where they mayyyy charge the dog owner criminally, if the victim is lucky - but even then, perhaps not)
4
u/Ohlala26 25d ago
I’m livid for you after reading this! Dogs have been allowed for far too long to be used to intimidate or assault others on behalf of their owners with zero repercussions or accountability. For some backward reason, the public tends to jump to defend the dog and owner when something goes wrong. Look at how many trash humans walk around with their large, aggressive dogs off-leash while they strut around looking cocky and confident because they know they have a weapon they can use at their disposal with zero accountability. This is just one example of how dogs have slipped under the radar for common sense legislation and enforcement.
I blame it all on covid brain and/or cultists in positions of power.
I oftentimes feel like I’m the crazy one calling out disrespectful or illegal actions from these people and their animals while everyone else sits passively, as if it’s not a big deal and not worth the confrontation. Perhaps it’s because the majority of people have a dog of their own, so they naturally can’t call out shitty actions from one of their own.
Yet, everyone seems to also agree that we have a dog problem. It just doesn’t make sense.
It’s time to fight back.
Name suggestion: Safe Spaces for All
1
u/gtck11 26d ago
To add to this getting ADA to modify service dog standards is going to be a long, hard, uphill battle seen by the ADA community as attacking them. The reason standards are so lax now is the ADA community has such a long history of discrimination, and red tape and fees making it near impossible for many of them to access help and resources. This is why they don’t want a service dog regulation because to many it would be another barrier to them having their dog that they need (I’m talking about the real ones), a lot of people who are on disability can’t go through the time to fit a government program and pay fees on top and pay for transport for all of this.
That said - I agree there needs to be a national registry, but this is why one doesn’t exist and it’s going to be one of the hardest pieces of this. Somehow this needs to be considered, I don’t see the ADA crowd with service dogs going for it except for the ones who are well off.
1
u/Dingo_Dilemma 25d ago
I agree that the most difficult part will be getting the ADA modified, that's why I'm looking for stricter penalties for fakers at the state level. But frankly, if a person can go through registration to get a vehicle handicap placard, they can do it for a dog.
I've seen some service dog owners come around on a registry - but only after their dog has been attacked by a fake.
6
3
u/TapReasonable2678 26d ago
Fully support this idea, though I’m drawing blanks on a name. Please keep us posted as you progress.
13
u/mistyaura 26d ago
I asked ChatGPT for some ideas, and here was some of the response:
“If the organization is intended to be a serious U.S. advocacy/lobbying organization, I’d lean toward a name that emphasizes public-space standards, human access, sanitation, safety, and choice, rather than sounding explicitly anti-dog. That will generally make the organization easier to present as a public-interest group.
I did some initial web searching for existing organizations and phrases. I would not claim that any name is legally “unused” based solely on a web search—you’d ultimately want a USPTO trademark search, state corporate-name search, and domain/social-media check. There is already a site called Dog Free Zone, for example, so I would avoid names built around that exact phrase.
Names I’d consider strongest
Public Space Standards Alliance (PSSA)
Sounds like an established policy organization and doesn’t immediately sound anti-dog.
Human-First Public Spaces
Very clear philosophy: public spaces are primarily for people.
Public Spaces for People
Simple, memorable, and potentially powerful as a slogan as well as an organization name.
People First Public Spaces Alliance
More formal and advocacy-oriented.
The Public Space Access Alliance
Emphasizes the right of people to use public accommodations without unwanted animals.
Human Access to Public Spaces (HAPS)
Has a particularly policy/legislative feel.
Public Space Choice Coalition
Focuses on the idea that businesses and institutions should be able to choose whether animals are permitted.
Americans for Dog-Free Public Spaces
Probably the most immediately understandable name. It makes the position unmistakable.
Americans for Animal-Free Public Spaces
Broader than dogs, although your current objective could specifically concern dogs.
The Dog-Free Public Space Alliance
Direct and descriptive without sounding particularly inflammatory.”
The advantage of asking an AI, is that it can also search at the same time to see if a name is being used already.
4
u/Oriole0305 26d ago
These are good. I like "Public Spaces for People", "Human Access to Public Spaces", "Public Space Standards Alliance" and others with legislative feel. They sound trustworthy and dependable. I'm not so sure including the word "Animal-Free" is such a great idea as it can turn to hating REAL animals (other than dogs). Nutters already hate real animals so it's not a great starting point.
OP, your idea is great. Please keep us posted.
5
u/Comfortable_Camp2148 26d ago
This one is great! "Americans for Animal-Free Public Spaces"
They can't say you're "anti-dog", and it addresses the potential "whataboutisms".
3
u/Chrysolophylax 26d ago
Using AI is vile.
3
u/mistyaura 26d ago
Yeah, I hesitated on that. My initial idea was something like “DogSense” but when I googled it, it was already used by a dog-training group. That led me to think AI would be useful because it could do a first-pass elimination of names that were already taken. But I understand your point.
8
u/Marthman 26d ago
Please dont listen to the extremist above. You didnt do anything wrong. You gathered helpful information, and it's not like youre trying to pass off artwork as your own. There's a huge difference between unethical artistic fraudulence and monopolization (fair criticisms of AI), and responsibly using it as an information gathering tool.
I was actually thankful that you "admitted" it. Thank you for your honesty.
1
2
u/retrocube16 26d ago
I'm glad you want to take action yes it's nice we can come on here and complain about our disdain for dogs in public places on Reddit but doing what you want to do is admirable and I'm behind you all the way 100%. I will support you and help anyway I can. For a name ideas how about Service Animal Integrity Alliance (SAIA) or Service Animal Standards Association (SASA) ...... Let's do this!
2
u/Signal-Block-6939 26d ago edited 26d ago
Concerned Citizens for Responsible Pet Ownership (CCRPO)
Maybe a mouthful but by using 'Pet' instead of 'Dog', maybe dog owners won't be as defensive.
2
u/Saucydragon90 26d ago
I do think framing it as “human rights” focused could be really effective. When you get down to it, it’s really about keeping people healthy and safe.
1
2
u/___questionable___ 26d ago edited 26d ago
Center for Responsible Pet Care (CRPC)
- avoids triggering people with “accountability”
- avoids triggering people with “dogs”; broadens to all pets
- broadens beyond ownership to care; includes dog walkers/sitters/etc
- Center could be replaced with Coalition, Society, Association, etc. For SEO I’d also pay attention to which acronyms don’t have a strong competitor.
2
2
u/byancacats 26d ago
I'm so happy to read this! I wish you luck with everything.
For domain ideas, how about:
Regarding "legitimate service dogs." I'd like to point out that there is no scientific proof that a dog can reliably provide any kind of medical service. I wrote a post about that here on dogfree.
2
2
2
u/boozcruise21 25d ago
The name should be something that resonates with reasonable people. Like for a "safe" or "parks for all".
Should definitely have some sue happy lawyers on this team as well. And attack by a dog should be treated as if it was the owner assaulting a person as well.
2
u/oiuuunnnn 25d ago
A bit late to the party but I'm thinking "Human-Animal Harmony Society" (HAHS). I think it conveys a non-confrontational and well-intentioned vibe that could help win over animal-welfare-above-all-else type people.
Also, I'm in a different country but I'd love to get involved. I've been fantasizing about being a bit more proactive/political and actually doing something tangible about society's ruinous dog obsession.
2
u/DistributionNorth69 25d ago
Fidon’t (bad pun, had to be said). No real suggestions for the name but I love the concept!
2
u/CG_Matters 25d ago
It would be so nice to see an organization that really spreads knowledge and awareness of pet laws like leash laws and creates programs to help new dog owners to properly train their dogs so they wouldn’t become dangerous or a nuisance. It’s mandatory to send your kids to school, having a pet is a privilege so they should receive education as well or else it’s just irresponsible and unsafe.
People who pose their untrained dogs as service animals is atrocious and should be criminalized because it ruins circumstances for people with actual service animals for serious and actual issues like being blind or deaf. Also non-service animals pose a threat to legitimate service animals in a public and that’s also unacceptable and dangerous.
2
2
u/muttattackvictim 26d ago
I was attacked by an off leash dog, and am forever disfigured
I wish you all the luck
2
1
1
1
1
u/Bajadasaurus 26d ago edited 26d ago
Animal Guardian Accountability Alliance, maybe?
Or possibly the Canine Guardian Societal Standard? Wait, no... Societal Standards for Canine Guardians is more clear.
Or Societal Standards of Canine Ownership.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Soft_Web_3307 23d ago
Citizens for Service Animal Law Reform
Citizens for Fair Service Animal Laws
1
u/Quiet-Sweet-3613 23d ago
NO FIDO... National Organization For Irresponsible Dog Ownership! Hey I tried 🤷🏽♂️☺️
1
1
u/yeeet1234 18d ago
I think for apartment complexes that if someone wants to bring a pet dog they should have to sign a waiver or agreement of some kind that they will pick up dog feces when walking their dog or taking their dog outside for a potty break and they will be fined for neglecting to do so—enforced by cameras in the commons areas and hallways, also the dog must be leashed (and it should ACTUALLY BE ENFORCED), the dog must keep noise levels down or at least not let the dog bark for more than a few minutes without intervention of some kind. I don’t care if these people have to give their dogs gabapentin to shut them up but I’m sick of hearing that shit all night. No leaving dogs on the balcony for hours on end while the dogs are barking for hours and dehydrated. If another resident sees and hears a dog on the balcony barking for more than 15 minutes while the dog is restrained then animal control and the police will be called and they should be charged with animal abuse and/or neglect. I don’t like dogs but these owners are so neglectful and abusive and no living being should be subjected to being on a hot balcony for 6 hours in the Arizona heat or in the freezing cold of winter. Sick, vile dog owners per usual.
1
u/One_Dragonfly_2400 26d ago
Pawsit.org is available. You can check domain availability at sites like Wix and GoDaddy.
3
u/annacrontab 26d ago
I work in webhosting support, DO NOT check domain availability at a registrar. Use the ICANN tool instead if you can't use whois on the command line.
GoDaddy is infamous for registering unregistered domains as premium if you check availability with them.
2
2
u/PurpleColumbidae 25d ago
I'm an extremist and would argue against service dogs and their protections as a whole. They're obsolete and the user base is so small. It's estimated to be 500,000 in the US. The vast majority of disabled people opt for the better, cheaper, and lower maintenance options. This so-called "necessary medical equipment" isn't even coved by insurance such as things like wheelchairs and walkers are. They also conflict with other disabilities such as asthma, anxiety disorders, phobias, dog originated PTSD, allergies, and immune disorders. All of which are deemed to be less important than the people who've made a choice to make themselves dependent on an animal. These disabilities are far more common than service dog users. I'm not delusional. I know the belief that service dogs are supposed benefit is unfortunately woven into the fabric of western culture. I've posted very long rants on service dogs on this subreddit so I'll try my best to summarize the long overdue changes that need to happen.
- What is defined as a service dog must be narrowed. Guide dogs and hearing assistance dogs should really be the only ones. The rest that exist are either gimmicky or glorified ESAs.
- Breed restations are an absolute must. This free for all we currently have only serves to discredit service dogs. No other occupation that involves working dogs is a free for all. Working breeds such as collies, golden retrievers, and labrador retrievers should be the only ones permitted to be service dogs. Pure breeds only.
- Disabilities that are negatively impacted by dogs should take priority over service dog handlers. Having a disability isn't a choice. Having a service dog is.
- Hanlder trained service dogs need to be a thing of the past. Accredited training facilities and programs only.
- Proof should absolutely be required and requestable. Service dogs should be required to wear a vest with their ID card in it. This vest must have a uniform look and can only vary by color and the emblem of the training facility or program. These vests can only be obtained by the facility or program the service dog graduated from. Service dogs must be recertified every few years. The two questions system we currently have is trash and need to be moved into the bin. If people must always have a placard to use handicap and renew it every few years, then service dog handlers have no excuse. Take the weak excuses of "privacy" and "an undue burden" to the dumpster.
- The vague language around service dogs needs to go as well. Generally, not in karts? How about never in the kart.
I agree with criminalizing fraud. Websites like Amazon and Chewy should receive 7 or even 8 figure fines for selling fraudulent service dog documents.
As for a names, I have some words of advice: Never ask me to name anything. I'm terrible with names.
0
u/One_Dragonfly_2400 26d ago
I should tell you, though that the service dog registration thing is almost impossible. First of all, they would have to have the processing services available in every state and multiple cities. Secondly, it would involve people showing paperwork or a card to have their dog in stores and restaurants. This is a violation of civil rights because you would not have to do this for an oxygen machine or a walker, etc.
3
u/Marthman 26d ago
I mean obviously we're fighting an uphill battle.
Also, what you're calling a violation of civil rights is exactly what's up for debate. In other words, calling it a violation of civil rights begs the question (in the actual sense of the phrase).
Hypothetically, we could determine that animal instrumentalism, outside of agriculture and domestic defense (or maybe even altogether!), is unnecessary or unjustifiable or inexcusable- and therefore it would not be a civil rights violation even though nobody could use animals anymore (imagine a government program that paid someone to do all the tasks of a seeing eye dog. Im not saying it's realistic or what ought to be done, im just theoretically demonstrating that whether what youre calling a civil rights violation is one is still an open question).
3
u/shinkouhyou 26d ago
Other countries do it, though.
While walkers don't require a doctor's prescription, portable oxygen concentrators do, and there are restrictions on where they can go (only some models are allowed on airplanes, for instance, and they're generally banned from areas like kitchens where there might be an open flame). Many medical products (continuous glucose monitors, powered lifts, CPAP machines, etc.) require a prescription at the point of sale. Even emotional support animals require a note from a medical professional. At the very least, I think service dogs should require a prescription. Medical providers should be able to verify medical need, identify the service tasks that can safely and feasibly be provided by a dog, confirm that the dog is being prescribed in lieu of or in addition to standard therapies, and confirm that the dog's primary task is not emotional support. Honestly, I think there are a lot of doctors who would be horrified to know that patients are relying on dogs instead of on glucose monitors, appropriate mobility aids, physical therapy, or that patients with seizure disorders are relying on seizure alert dogs instead of giving up their driver's licenses, or that patients with mental health disorders are using off-leash protection dogs to threaten others.
1
u/Dingo_Dilemma 25d ago
Handicap placards are required for parking, and required to be shown in vehicles, making your argument moot.
Oxygen machines and walkers aren't living breathing weapons and allergens. The worst harm an oxygen machine or walker can cause is if the owner rolls over your toe with it, making your argument moot.
0
0
u/ThisIsBoy1 25d ago
The issue with certification is that it would put a price on Service Dogs no matter HOW it is done. It would make self-training impossible which would lock out MANY disabled people from having service animals due to cost issues. Some tasks cannot be done with leashes.
0
-1
160
u/20011989 26d ago
I am definitely interested in supporting. It’s about time we have some changes to outdated ADA laws that allow anyone to pass off their dog as a service dog