Being Given A Chance.....

Western v traditional Shar-pei: what I see

Click to enlarge...

Indian takeaway - the St Bernard with no eyes

I've featured some exaggerated Indian-bred dogs in the past here (Pedigree Dogs Exposed India anyone?)and it has provoked outraged comments by those who consider themselves in more 'civilised' breeding countries.

The dog above is clearly a really exaggerated parody of what a St Bernard should be.  However, on this occasion the finger of blame needs to point not at his current owner in Punjab but at this dog's American breeder.

This dog is Trademarks Avatar - born in the USA on 24th April 2010.

Here he is as a youngster winning in Indiana in 2011 at a Berrian Kennel Club show.

He was then flogged off to India, and has become a champion there, too.

And he's not the only former American champ sold off to India for thousands of dollars. The same Indian kennel owns this dog, too - American + Indian Champion "Virgil" - here's a pic of him winning in the US.

And here he is today in India.

Poor dogs. Bred, sold, bought and campaigned by idiots with no sense of proportion. 

What should St Bernards be like?

Well how about these?

1955

1905

1906

1910

For more moderate current Saints, check out the Barry Foundation in Switzerland which is working on restoring the breed to its original type. Not all of their dogs are perfect, but they're getting some things right. This is Cheyenne, a four-year-old bitch with a lovely moderate head and good eyes - with Trademarks Avatar below for comparison.

New Definition of "Service Dog" May Get SDs for PTSD into VA Buildings, but Old Defnition May Keep Them off VA Transport Vehicles

Additional Note:  The regulations.gov website now indicates that final rules will be issued in October 2016.  Since I was the only commenter, this lengthy finalization stage is more likely an indication of priority rather than any administrative crush of verifying the utility of comments.  However, a notice regarding information collection posted in the Federal Register of December 31 (80 FR 81883) does indicate that the agency is trying to gather additional data regarding its amendment of 38 CFR 1.218(a)(11).  Since that amendment has been finalized, as discussed in a blog from August 21, 2015, the information collection may actually have something to do with collateral consequences of that regulation as finalized, which could include the issue discussed below. 


Regulations proposed in the Federal Register on May 27 would restrict transport of service dogs to those that have been funded, or at best could have been funded, by the Department of Veterans Affairs.  Such dogs must have been trained by a member organization of Assistance Dogs International or the International Guide Dog Federation, so would not include service dogs trained by other organizations or by the veterans themselves. (Dogs trained by organizations that are candidates for membership in ADI or IGDF would also not satisfy the definition, as stated by the VA at 77 Fed. Reg. 54372, September 5, 2012.) Such dogs would have to be used for visual, hearing, or substantial mobility impairments, so would not include service dogs for PTSD and other psychological conditions.

The problem with this proposal is that once the service dog access regulations proposed by the VA in the Federal Register on November 21, 2014, are made final, as may happen soon, veterans will be able to enter VA facilities with service dogs for PTSD, but unless the transport rules are revised to conform, they will not be able to bring their dogs on vehicles that will take them to the appointments.  While it might be expected that logic will not let this happen, the administrative paralysis that has afflicted operation of the VA in recent years could mean that logic will have little to say about the matter.  We can pray, but we can also write letters, and I submitted the following comment letter concerning the regulatory confusion to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The letter has now been posted on the regulations.gov website. Thanks to Veronica and Brad Morris of Psychiatric Service Dog Partners for reading an earlier draft of this letter. 

June 4, 2015

William F. Russo, Director

Regulation Policy and Management

Department of Veterans Affairs

810 Vermont Ave. NW, Room 1068

Washington, DC 20420

Re: RIN 2900-AO92-Veterans Transportation Service

Dear Director Russo:

This comment is submitted regarding two provisions in the proposed rules concerning the Veterans Transportation Service as published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2015, 80 Fed. Reg. 30190.  Both provisions refer to service dogs.  I am an attorney in private practice, licensed in the State of New York. I have written a book, Service and Therapy Dogs in American Society (CC Thomas 2010), which describes service animal rules in various contexts, and also maintain a blog that regularly covers legal issues regarding dogs where I have discussed issuances of various agencies, including those of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Proposed 38 CFR 70.71(b) states that �[r]egardless of a veteran�s eligibility for beneficiary travel, VA may provide VTS [Veterans Transportation Service] to veterans enrolled in VA�s health care system who need transportation authorized under � 70.72 [Types of transportation] for: � (2) Retrieval of, adjustment of, or training concerning medications, prosthetic appliances, or a service dog (as defined in 38 CFR 17.148)�� (emphasis added). The other reference to a service dog in the proposed rules occurs at 38 CFR 70.73(a), which provides that in requesting VTS, the requester �must provide the facility director or designee with information necessary to arrange these services, including � any special needs that must be accommodated to allow for transportation (e.g., wheelchair, oxygen tank, service or guide dog)�� (emphasis added). The second provision does not separately reference a definition for �service or guide dog� so it must be presumed that the definition would there also be taken from 38 CFR 17.148.[1]

The preamble to the proposal, at 80 Fed. Reg. 30192-3, elaborates:

Enrolled veterans would be eligible under paragraph (b) [Enrolled veterans] if they are traveling for a scheduled visit or urgent care; for retrieval, adjustment, or training concerning medications or prosthetic appliances; to acquire and become adjusted to a service dog provided pursuant to 38 CFR 17.148; for an unscheduled visit; or to participate and attend other events or functions for the purposes of examination, treatment, or care. (emphasis added)

This paragraph is apparently intended to indicate that if a veteran needs VTS in order to acquire or become adjusted to a service dog, such a dog would have to be one that satisfies the requirements of 38 CFR 17.148, which has a narrower definition of service dog than that contained in proposed 38 CFR 1.218(a), 79 Fed. Reg. 69379, November 21, 2014. If providing transportation services to acquire a service dog is regarded as one of the expenses that the VA will undertake to cover under the general service dog funding regulation, 38 CFR 17.148, then there is some logic to such a restriction.[2]  The phrase �becoming adjusted to a service dog� would seem to be somewhat less easily categorized as an activity that should be restricted to a service dog for which the VA would provide funding.  Although it is not clear how often veterans are provided VTS solely for the purpose of becoming adjusted to traveling with service dogs, all veterans with all service dogs, including service dogs under the broad definition of proposed 38 CFR 1.218(a), must be able to habituate their dogs to transportation vehicles.

The preamble also states that when an eligible person is contacting a VA facility regarding an examination, treatment, or care at the facility, a request may be made for transportation services.  The request may be made to a Mobility Manager in �many cases,� or to someone designated by the facility director.  The request is to contain necessary information for the transportation of the veteran, which can include �special needs that must be accommodated to allow for transportation (e.g., wheelchair, oxygen tank, service or guide dog) and other relevant information.� 

This clearly indicates that transportation services can be provided to any eligible veteran who is coming to a VA facility for an examination, treatment, or care, and who may need to be accompanied by a service dog.  Such a dog should not be presumed to be restricted to a dog eligible for VA funding under 38 CFR 17.148, but rather to any service dog that can obtain access to VA property under proposed 38 CFR 1.218(a), a much broader definition and one largely if not completely consistent with regulations regarding service animals issued by the Department of Justice (28 CFR 36.104, etc.).  If service animals that could be brought with a veteran on a VTS transport vehicle were restricted to the definition provided in 38 CFR 17.148, the anomalous situation would inevitably arise, upon finalization of 38 CFR 1.218(a), that a veteran could be entitled to bring a service dog for PTSD into a VA facility but would not be able to obtain transportation services in order to get the dog to the entrance of the facility. 

It might be argued that proposed regulations on transportation services should not be required to take into account proposed regulations on another issue, and this argument may as a policy matter have merit.  I note, however, that at a May 19 meeting of the VA Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special-Disabilities Programs, slides presented by Joyce Edmondson, Co-Chair of the VHA Animals in Health Care Committee, indicate that proposed 38 CFR 1.218(a) �is currently in the concurrence process with expedited review being completed at request of the Secretary.�  It would, therefore, seem appropriate to anticipate the finalization of those regulations with language to the effect that transportation services should be provided to veterans with service dogs as defined in regulations relevant to the access of animals to VA facilities.

Distinction between Service Dogs under 38 CFR 17.148 and Proposed 38 CFR 1.218(a)

Under 38 CFR 17.148, service dogs are defined as �guide or service dogs prescribed for a disabled veteran�.�  Clinical requirements must be met, including that the �veteran is diagnosed as having a visual, hearing, or substantial mobility impairment�.�  Even if a veteran is diagnosed as having such a condition, the regulation provides that �[i]f other means (such as technological devices or rehabilitative therapy) will provide the same level of independence, then VA will not authorize benefits under this section.�  I have been informally advised by one group working with veterans that this sentence has on occasion been used to justify medications, often substantial amounts of medications, as a preferable alternative to the use of a service dog. 

In addition to the one sentence definition of service dogs, 38 CFR 17.148(c) defines �[r]ecognized service dogs � for the purpose of paying benefits�� as having to satisfy the following requirement:

The dog and veteran must have successfully completed a training program offered by an organization accredited by Assistance Dogs International or the International Guide Dog Federation, or both (for dogs that perform both service- and guide-dog assistance). The veteran must provide to VA a certificate showing successful completion issued by the accredited organization that provided such program.[3]

Thus, the veteran is to have a document that indicates completion of a training program with one of two organizations, or both.  Such a document might become a means by which employees of transport services would be able to verify that a service dog satisfies the requirements of 38 CFR 17.148 and thereby preclude access to vehicles by service dogs without such documentation.  Indeed, to accept dogs that did not qualify under 38 CFR 17.148 might arguably be a violation of the mandates of the proposed revisions to 38 CFR Part 70.

In contrast, proposed 38 CFR 1.218(a)(11)(viii) defines a �service animal� as follows:

A service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work and 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 individual�s disability. 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. Service dogs in training are not considered service animals. This definition applies regardless of whether VA is providing benefits to support a service dog under � 17.148 of this chapter. (emphasis added)

There is no specific organizational connection required for a dog to be a service animal under this provision, and there is no reason that a dog could not be trained by a veteran himself.  Indeed, there are programs under which veterans are presently being taught to train dogs, including service dogs.[4]  Also, there is no requirement that the service animal�s function be solely related to a �visual, hearing, or substantial mobility impairment,� as specified in 38 CFR 17.148, and functions related to a �sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability� are specifically allowed for service animals under the proposed provision.  If there were any doubt, the final sentence specifically distinguishes this section from the funding provision. 

Suggested Modifications to 38 CFR Part 70 Proposal

It is, of course, possible that proposed 38 CFR 1.218(a) will be finalized before the proposal under discussion here is finalized.  In that event I respectfully suggest that the parenthetical cross-reference in 38 CFR 70.71(b)(2) to 38 CFR 17.148 be changed to 38 CFR 1.218(a).  If finalization of 38 CFR 1.218(a) does not occur prior to the finalization of the current proposal, I suggest that the parenthetical reference in 38 CFR 70.71(b)(2) be altered to read:

(as defined in 38 CFR 17.148 or in such regulations as apply to the access of animals to VA property) 

Although I do not believe an exception on transportation services should be made based on the VA�s service dog funding policy, if it were deemed necessary to separate general transportation services from transportation specifically to acquire a service dog, the cross-reference to a broader definition could be restricted to proposed 38 CFR 70.73(a), where a sentence could be added after the sentence with the parenthetical reference to �service or guide dog� stating: �For purposes of this provision, a service dog is one defined under such regulations as apply to the access of animals to VA property.�

If an alteration to the effect of one of these suggestions is not accepted, the preamble to the final regulation under 38 CFR Part 70 should advise veterans as to the reason for a policy decision that transportation services will only be provided to service dogs satisfying the restricted requirements of 38 CFR 17.148. 

Please contact me with any questions regarding this comment.  I can be reached at jensminger@msn.com or at 917-613-4960.

Respectfully submitted,

John J. Ensminger 

---

[1] No provision other than �17.148 in Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines or even refers to service dogs.  Present 38 CFR 1.218(a)(11) refers to seeing-eye dogs, a provision that would be significantly expanded under the proposed service and therapy dog access regulations referred to at length in this letter.  38 CFR 17.37(h)(i) refers to certain kinds of care which, under special circumstances, a veteran may receive, mentioning �seeing-eye or guide dogs.�  38 CFR 18.444 refers to recipients of funds to provide educational programs for veterans and states that such recipients cannot impose certain kinds of rules on �handicapped students,� an example of which would be prohibiting students from bringing guide dogs into campus buildings. 

[2] Under 38 CFR 70.1, Part 70 �provides a mechanism� under which the VHA is �to make payments for travel expenses incurred in the United States to help veterans and other persons obtain care or services from VHA.�  Although this makes 38 CFR Part 70 itself something of a funding regulation, there is no logical reason to subsume its funding limits under the funding provisions of 38 CFR 17.148.  Obviously, somebody with crutches or a walker that needed transportation, but who did not obtain such items with VA assistance or approval, would not be told to leave their prosthetics at home because they were not or could not be obtained with VA funding. 

[3] A second provision regarding �recognized service dogs� concerns dogs obtained prior to the issuance of the regulation. 

[4] See, e.g., Rick A. Yount, Meg D. Olmert, and Mary R. Lee (2012), �Service Dog Training Program for Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress in Service Members,� pp. 63-69 in The United States Army Medical Department Journal: Canine-Assisted Therapy in Military Medicine (April-June 2012), describing a service-dog training program as �a safe, effective, nonpharmaceutical intervention to treat the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury in Veterans and service members undergoing treatment at a large Veterans Administration residential treatment facility.� (available for download at http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=73e8d2aa-1a2a-467d-b6e3-e73652da8622).

KC Chairman ousted... Members revolting

Yesterday, Kennel Club Chairman Steve Dean was booted out after four years in office. His crime? Professor Dean had tried to steer the Kennel Club into the 21st century. The natives, however, are determined to remain in the 19th. 

Dean believed strongly that if the KC is to be taken seriously in the modern age; if it is to enhance its stature after a difficult few years, it should be more inclusive... to be about all dogs, not just purebred dogs.

�This has been our stated mission for many years now, and yet some members clearly believe we should narrow the focus of our efforts to purely the registered purebred dog," he wrote in the June issue of the Kennel Club Journal.

This, said Dean, was an "isolationist approach" which would not allow the KC to speak authoritatively on canine issues "unless members are content to limit our remit to speaking only about health and inherited diseases in the pedigree breeds.

�The world of pedigree dogs has a vast array of experience and knowledge that can be used across the spectrum of dog ownership. The practical skills we bring to the table on breeding, genetics, training, socialisation and husbandry are extensive and form an important part of the public debate on dog ownership.

The KC, he felt "should stand up for all dogs whatever their origins."

But this stance has enraged the diehard show-head purists who simply don't want the KC to have anything to do with mutts. Hell, they even want breeders who produce purebred dogs in non-standard colours to be chucked off the Assured Breeder Scheme.

The KC's recent AGM was marked by a lot of anti-crossbreed, anti-outcrossing, pro-purebred rhetoric. Dinosaur judge Jean Lanning proposed (and won) a motion to review the KC's acceptance/promotion of crossbreeds. She also criticised the acceptance of imported dogs which may contain "alien" blood,  and suggested that recent concern about purebred dog health was a veterinary plot.

As reported in DogWorld:

[Lanning] feels that there are many thousands of dogs who on the whole lead pretty healthy lives if they come from good breeders, but she �finds it sad that a very small elite section of the veterinary profession appear to many of us to be far away in remote ivory towers, often advocating that some of our most cherished pure breeds should be crossed out to a different breed.� 

She instanced horses from the Spanish School of Riding and the Chillingham cattle which have been bred for centuries without fresh blood, and mentioned the plight of the wild cat, whose demise is threatened by interbreeding with the feral cat.

At the same meeting, breeder Pat Brigden raised concern that an outcrossed Irish Red + White Setter had qualified for next year's Crufts, clearly reflecting the concerns of many in the room. Brigden is a staunch opponent of the Irish Setter/Irish Red + White Setter outcross programme which is endorsed by the Irish Kennel Club. She has, apparently, warned about solid red dogs popping up unexpectedly in future generations of IRWS (something that's genetically impossible).

Here, btw, is sneak peek of the second-generation IRWS that's qualified for next year's Cruft's  - one of two outcrossed IRWS to do so in fact. As you can see, he's a very nice, very typical young IRWS.  More importantly, this dog and the other outcrossed progeny offer genetic salvation to a breed that is now horribly inbred and has an unsustainable effective population size.

Dalriach William Wallace - 9mths, second-generation IRWS outcross

But to some people this dog is impure... tainted... a mongrel (irrespective of the fact that there are loads of solid red dogs in IRWS pedigrees because, of course, they all used to be the same breed).  And, boy, there are way more of these Luddites than I feared. A few days ago, this comment appeared on one of my posts about the LUA Dalmatians (if you remember, dogs that descend from a single Pointer cross in the 1970s, seventeen generations ago).

I'll NEVER adopt a Dalmatian who has the LUA Dalmatians in them. They aren't Dalmatians they are crosses! Hence the word "out cross". The breeders are so high and mighty about them too, when it's wrong. Yes breeds have out crosses from 100s of years ago, but not as recently as this. It's wrong. If you want a pointer get a pointer, don't mess around with a wonderful breed.

I try not to swear much here... but really, how fucking thick can they be?

Today, I tend to move in dog circles populated by bright, educated and energetic people who are doing their utmost to marry science with good stockmanship skills in order to breed better dogs, whether purebred or not. Clearly, I have been labouring under the illusion that they are representative of the wider breeder community.

Check out this editorial in last week's DogWorld:

Clearly a great many breeders of �pure� bred dogs feel the KC has gone a step too far in its emphasis on ALL dogs.  

For decades they have coped with the club having a separate list for dogs not on the pedigree register, so they can compete in some of the working disciplines. More recently, they have accepted the club setting up yet another register, for �companion dogs�. They accepted the KC getting involved in Scruffts, a �competition� for mongrels, and making it a centrepiece of Discover Dogs, and even going so far as to giving it a high-profile �final� in Crufts� main ring. They have accepted � often with some reluctance � the KC allowing outcrosses in certain breeds.  

 But now their patience seems to have been exhausted. What was the final straw? Was it just a build-up of resentment, or is it the fact that the Assured Breeder Scheme, which the KC is so keen for leading breeders to support, is also able to encompass those who produce non-pedigree dogs? 

Most can cope with the fact that charities like Guide Dogs, which produce crossbreeds for specific good reasons, can be members, but beyond that it is perhaps a step too far for many.

And thus it has proved. And so it's out with the old... and in with the older. The Kennel Club has been reclaimed by those who believe in purity at all costs and want the KC to be only about pedigree dogs.

The new Chairman is Simon Coryndon Luxmoore - also Chief Exec of the Royal Aeronautical Society. He is - allegedly - a bit of a thug, albeit a reasonably well-bred one. He went to Millfield - a public school best known for attracting those with more prowess on the sporting field than in the classroom.

Somewhat confusingly, he was known until recently as Simon Luxmoore Ball. We duffed up his half-brother, Nigel Luxmoore-Ball, in  Pedigree Dogs Exposed for breeding a horribly-overdone Basset.

In recent years, Luxmoore has dropped the Ball (and him a sportsman!) although his wife still prefers the double-barrel.

Luxmoore is a Siberian Husky man - as is KC Secretary Caroline Kisko. In Sibe circles he is known as Damian to Kisko's Mrs Baylock (the nanny of the anti-Christ child).  The pair co-authored (with Luxmoore's first wife, Sheila, and Caroline's husband, Chris Kisko) a well-regarded book on the Siberian Husky. Indeed, some suggest that this is a an unholy coup hatched up betwixt Luxmoore and Kisko who wasn't happy that Dean was appointed Chair last time round.

Certainly, at the Dog Health Workshop in Dortmund earlier this year, it was Steve Dean who seemed to be embracing reform while Mrs Kisko remained largely impassive. We shared a workshop and in an often lively discussion about ways to improve dog health, Kisko did not speak.  She is a daughter of Mike Stockman, a former Chairman of Crufts, likely rather more steeped in KC culture than veterinary surgeon Dean - although Stockman, too, was a vet.

In the absence of much of an alternative, I guess I've been fairly supportive of the KC recently, feeling that inching reform is better than none and pleased that the KC had seemed to be adopting a more inclusive approach. Dean made it clear to me in Dortmund that he saw this as the KC's future (thus no doubt marking his card further... how dare he speak to the enemy!)

So my first response to what would appear to be a retrograde step was horror. But, actually, on reflection... let them at it. Let them bury themselves in their increasingly irrelevant, isolationist pit while the rest of us embrace the real world. Let them continue to trot their dogs round in meaningless circles in pursuit of meaningless ribbons. Let them continue to throw increasingly ineffective potshots at crossbreeds while show entries and purebred registrations continue to decline. And let them think (because this, apparently is the ticket) that better  PR  - rather than better breeding - will get pedigree dogs out of the hole they're in.

My mate Ryan O'Meara (K9 Media) sums it up perfectly:

"No bad thing. A bit like FIFA. When the choice was between an incumbent who's overseen decades of corruption or a Jordanian prince, one may assume reform could be on the way if the lesser of two evils won - a false hope. As it is, with an organisation so rooted in its insularity they picked the greater of two evils and thus the organisation continues to eat itself. In the long run, this is best. Write them off, witness their demise and continue to promote an alternative view.

"Both FIFA and the Kennel Club would rather the rest of the world just went away and left them to get on with things in private. The problem is, they also want respect, kudos and credibility despite trampling all over such values in a very public way. The fact that Blatter has (clearly) been forced to jump changes little. He was well supported. The people who supported him despite his overseeing abject failure and embarrassment are still there and they still see their organisation through a prism that is completely out of touch with the majority of the real world.  

"As a football fan, I wanted with all my heart for our own representatives to not just talk a good talk but walk it. I wanted them to remove themselves from the process, take a stand and watch others follow. I want the same for the Kennel Club. Those who are tainted by association need to think outside of the confines of an organisation that has repeatedly proven itself to want to paint an image of reform but whose deeds speak to a quite different way of thinking."

Three million page views and a couple of mutts

Overnight, the PDE Blog achieved the milestone of having attracted three million page views since my first post on 11th November 2010 four and a half years ago.

Since then I have written 344 posts (including this one) and the blog now averages around 2,000 page views a day (less during quiet times, and up to 10,000 a day during busy times).

The big spike you can see above was the coverage of Crufts 2011 centering on the terrible state of the Neapolitan Mastiffs at that year's show -  A parade of mutants is the blog's 8th most read post of all time.

The most popular post remains World's first striped pug - in fact an April Fool, although an astonishing number of people still fall for it. Second is The bald truth about the Chinese Crested which explores how the dogs are shaved for the show-ring. A new entry in the PDE Blog Hall of Fame is The demise of the Great Dane - a post raising concern about the very heavy Eurodanes published just two months ago and already the 4th post popular post of all time.  At number 6 is Bull Terriers: head case which continues to attract a lot of interest (mostly from Bull Terrier owners outraged that I should suggest that there's anything wrong with distorting this breed's head into a joke).

There are quick-link references to all the most popular posts down the right hand side of the blog if you scroll down a bit.

Four posts that have attracted over 200 comments apiece:

Pedigree Dogs Exposed - Three Years On (285)
Bulldogs @ Crufts 2013 - Part 1 (263)
Huffington Post in a huff over mongrels (251)
A topline to die for (217)

And here's who has been reading it... thank you America.. ;-)

I recently had to close the Pedigree Dogs Exposed Facebook page because it was taking way too much of my time to moderate - but I will continue to write and maintain the blog as I feel there is a need for a continuing critical eye on the world of purebred (and other selectively-bred) dogs.  

My 'proper' job is as a TV producer is very demanding - and I am currently in the middle of making a  series for BBC2 exploring a new potential treatment for Parkinson's Disease; I also run a busy dog rescue and, currently, have eight dogs of my own to care for, train and walk. 

Some of you will already be familiar with my amazing Jake - a GSD/Doberman/Setter x, now 13 and still running like the wind - perfect heart, perfect joints and near-perfect hips - as was revealed recently when we took the opportunity to x-ray his hips when he was under sedation to check a foot injury. He's a clear outlier so can't claim much for his muttish good health - but it makes you realise what's possible for even big dogs (Jake is 32in tall).

This is Jake playing/running in slo-mo a few weeks ago. 

This is the youngest of my dogs - Curly Girlie (official name Gemma but the nickname has stuck). This was shot last Sunday on Salisbury Plain where we walk every day, rain or shine. Curly is three-quarters Irish Water Spaniel and a real delight; hopefully free of the litany of health problems suffered by the purebred IWS, although at only 18 months old, it is of course way too early to tell. I was a little tempted to keep her entire as I thought she might have something genetically to contribute to the breed if she proved her health - but in the end decided it was impractical in a multi-dog household (and with even my neutered males still very interested in in-season bitches). She was spayed two months ago.

VA Secretary Puts Service Dog Rules Revision on Fast Track

Additional Note: The Monday, August 17, 2015, edition of the Federal Register contains the VA's final rules regarding animals on VA property. 80 Fed. Reg. 49157.  Those rules will be the subject of further analysis in this blog.  Also, see the summary of the final rules provided by Psychiatric Service Dog Partners. 

Slides presented at the May 19 meeting of the VA Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special-Disabilities Programs indicate that the proposed access regulations on service and therapy dogs, described here last November, have been given an expedited review status by Robert A. McDonald, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

Although no date for issuance of the final rules has been announced, presumably the Secretary�s designation will mean that this should occur in the next few months.  One of the slides in the presentation, reproduced to the left, indicates there will be training programs for police service employees of the VA since, often working at the entrances to VA facilities, �enforcement falls largely to them.�  Other affected staff have already participated in conference calls regarding the proposed rules according the last bullet point in the slide.

Leased Facilities Subject to ADA Service Dog Rules 

Another slide from the May 19 presentation, reproduced below, makes the interesting observation that leased facilities used by the VA, which may include outpatient clinics and Vet Centers, "may be covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act for access depending on how lease agreement and what access law applies."  A note under the main bullet point adds: "Care should be taken when negotiating these agreements."  This suggests to me that there has been a problem somewhere, perhaps in a facility where the VA does not have absolute control over the space, but shares it with some other entity or service provider.  

If the lease agreement did not provide that VA policy on service dogs should apply to the facility, it could mean that patients or employees with dogs defined as service dogs by the Department of Justice were bringing in psychiatric service dogs, so veterans began demanding the same privilege, or merely started bringing PTSD dogs with them to appointments or to work. (Many veterans are both VA employees and recipients of medical services at VA facilities.) Someone at the VA who had negotiated such a lease agreement is probably in hot water, though the flame should be lowered when the access rules are finalized.   

Transport Vehicles to Handle Service Dogs

Also, on May 27, the Department of Veterans Affairs issued proposed rules regarding transportation of eligible persons to or from a VA facility for examination, treatment  or care.  The proposal states that, for veterans enrolled in the VA�s health care system who need transportation, adjustments are to be made if the veteran requires transportation with a service dog (proposed 38 CFR 70.71(b)(2)).  In arranging transportation services, the veteran or other individual making the request on behalf of the veteran is to indicate �any special needs that must be accommodated to allow for transportation (e.g., wheelchair, oxygen tank, service or guide dog), and other relevant information.�  Proposed 38 CFR 70.73(a), 80 Fed. Reg. 30190, May 27, 2015.

A service dog, for the purpose of such an accommodation in transportation, is defined under the VA's service dog funding provision, 38 CFR 17.148, so will not include psychiatric service dogs used, for instance, by veterans with PTSD.  The cross reference for the definition of "service dog" should change to 38 CFR 1.218(a), the proposed access regulation, once that is made final. Otherwise, veterans with PTSD dogs, and other service dogs for which the VA does not provide funding, may be able to bring the dogs into a VA facility after the access rule is finalized, but will not be able to take the dogs with them onto VA transport vehicles in order to get to a facility. Ideally, of course, the definition of "service dog" in the funding rule should be changed as well.

Conclusion

One of the slides used at the Advisory Committee meeting is about "pseudo-service dogs," and provides that employees can ask users if a dog is a service dog and what tasks the dog performs for the veteran.  It states that handlers who invite others to pet or play with their dogs probably do not have service dogs.  Also any unruly, unclean, un-house-broken, or generally misbehaving dog is deemed likely to be a pseudo-service dog. It can be expected that such generalizations will be part of the training that security officers and others will be receiving in the future.

The fact that the phrase "concurrence process" is used to describe the completion of the regulatory review (first slide above, second bullet point) may indicate that there have been disputes regarding the proposals within and between some sections of the VA, and that the individuals responsible for finalizing the rules are trying to get some level of cooperation across the agency. If nothing will be released until there is "concurrence," the optimism I expressed in the second paragraph above for a quick finalization may be misplaced. I hope I shall be proven wrong as to this speculation.    

Thanks to Larry N. Long, who works with the Advisory Committee, for providing a copy of the slide presentation of Joyce Edmondson, VHA Animals in Health Care Committee Co-Chair.