Is a Dog in a Vest a Service Dog?
Although some service dogs may wear vests, special harnesses, collars or tags, the ADA does not require service dogs to wear vests or display identification. Conversely, many dogs that do wear ID vests or tags specifically are not actual service dogs.
For example, Emotional Support Animals (ESAs) are animals that provide comfort just by being with a person. But, because these dogs are not trained to perform a specific job or task for a person with a disability, they do not qualify as service dogs under the ADA.
The ADA makes a distinction between psychiatric service dogs and emotional support animals. For example, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, “If the dog has been trained to sense that an anxiety attack is about to happen and take a specific action to help avoid the attack or lessen its impact, that would qualify as a service animal. However, if the dog’s mere presence provides comfort, that would not be considered a service animal under the ADA.”
ESAs are not allowed access to public facilities under the ADA. However, some state and local governments have enacted laws that allow owners to take ESAs into public places. ESA owners are urged to check with their state, county, and city governments for current information on permitted and disallowed public access for ESAs.
Owners of ESAs may be eligible for access to housing that is not otherwise available to pet dog owners. Access to housing and other public spaces for ESAs can vary by location and destination, and these rules are subject to change. ESAs are not eligible for special accommodation in air travel.
Therapy dogs provide opportunities for petting, affection, and interaction in a variety of settings on a volunteer basis. Therapy dogs and their owners bring cheer and comfort to hospital patients, assisted living center residents, stressed travelers in airports, college students during exams, and in other situation where friendly, well-trained dogs are welcome. Therapy dogs are also used to relieve stress and bring comfort to victims of traumatic events or disasters. Many groups that train therapy dogs or that take dogs on pet therapy visits have matching ID tags, collars, or vests.
Like ESAs, therapy dogs are not defined as service dogs under the ADA, do not receive access to public facilities, are not eligible for special housing accommodations, and do not receive special cabin access on commercial flights.
Courthouse dogs are another category of dogs that sometimes wear vests or display other ID, but are not service dogs. Several states have enacted measures that allow a child or vulnerable person to be accompanied by a courthouse, facility, or therapy dog during trial proceedings. The rules and requirements for use of these dogs vary by state, and additional states are considering enacting similar laws.
Courtroom dogs are not protected under the ADA and are not eligible for special housing accommodations or cabin access on commercial flights. “Facility Dogs” are a growing category of therapy dogs that may work in a specific institutional setting such as a school, courthouse, or healthcare facility.
REVIEW article Front. Vet. Sc, 12 May 2021 Sec. Animal Behavior and Welfare
Dogs perform a variety of integral roles in our society, engaging in work ranging from assistance (e.g., service dogs, guide dogs) and therapy to detection (e.g., search-and-rescue dogs, explosive detection dogs) and protection (e.g., military and law enforcement dogs). However, success in these roles, which requires dogs to meet challenging behavioral criteria and to undergo extensive training, is far from guaranteed. Therefore, enhancing the selection process is critical for the effectiveness and efficiency of working dog programs and has the potential to optimize how resources are invested in these programs, increase the number of available working dogs, and improve working dog welfare. In this paper, we review two main approaches for achieving this goal: (1) developing selection tests and criteria that can efficiently and effectively identify ideal candidates from the overall pool of candidate dogs, and (2) developing approaches to enhance performance, both at the individual and population level, via improvements in rearing, training, and breeding. We summarize key findings from the empirical literature regarding best practices for assessing, selecting, and improving working dogs, and conclude with future steps and recommendations for working dog organizations, breeders, trainers, and researchers.
Since their domestication more than 10,000 years ago (1–3), the nature of dogs interactions with people has taken many forms. On one end of the spectrum, free-ranging dogs live largely on the outskirts of society, interacting minimally with humans other than to scavenge for food (4). On the other end of the spectrum, pet dogs are welcomed into our homes (5) and beds (6), valued for their companionship, and can evoke emotional reactions analogous to those in the parent-child bond (7–9). Within this patchwork of human-dog interconnectedness, working dogs represent a small subset of the dog population, but one that can have profound effects on human health and well-being.
The roles that working dogs perform, now and throughout history, have been extremely diverse. Dogs have played critical roles in hunting and agriculture [e.g., livestock guarding dogs, herding dogs; (10)], transportation [e.g., sled dogs; (11)], public health [e.g., medical detection dogs; (12)], and environmental protection [e.g., conservation dogs; (13, 14)]. Although dogs working in each of these areas provide important benefits to humans, a comprehensive review of the many roles that working dogs fulfill is beyond the scope of the current paper. Thus, in this review, we focus on working dogs employed in three of the most common applications: assistance, protection, and detection dogs.
The primary purpose of an assistance dog is to perform tasks for an individual with a disability that ultimately allows that person to achieve greater independence. Research suggests that these dogs are effective not only as mobility aids, but may also provide psychosocial benefits to their partners (15–25). Assistance dogs represent a more recently-developed working dog role (26). While the first assistance dog organization was established in the United States with the opening of The Seeing Eye guide dog school in 1929, assistance dog use became more widespread only as recently as 1990 (27), when the Americans with Disabilities Act protected the right of a service dog to accompany their partner to public places (28). As of 2020, there are 133 assistance dog providers accredited by Assistance Dogs International, Inc. There are several distinct categories of placements that fall under the umbrella of “assistance dogs”: guide dogs, who assist blind or visually impaired handlers with navigation of their environment; hearing dogs, who assist people who are deaf or hard of hearing by alerting to relevant sounds (27), and service dogs, who assist people with physical disabilities by helping with daily tasks such as opening doors and retrieving objects. In more recent years, service dogs have also been trained to assist people with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) under the supervision of a third party, usually a parent (29), to assist Veterans suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (30), and to use olfaction to alert their handler to relevant medical events (31).
In contrast to assistance dogs, the title therapy dog is often given to dogs trained to help people in other settings ranging from facilitating childrens practice reading (32), to promoting social interactions among the elderly (33), or participating in psychosocial interventions for children with disabilities (34). While therapy dogs often provide directed services for a human handler, they do not have legally protected access to accompany their owner/handler into businesses and public places (35). Some therapy dogs are further distinguished from assistance dogs, as described above, in that their handler may not be the direct beneficiary of the dogs presence, but rather a facilitator of the dogs interactions with others, often in a health care or school setting. These therapy dogs may participate in animal-assisted interventions, a broad category of tasks which can refer to either animal-assisted therapy—undertaken in conjunction with a health professional, working toward a specific goal—or animal-assisted activity—undertaken in conjunction with a professional or volunteer in a more spontaneous setting (36). Although therapy dogs play important roles, this topic has been covered in depth elsewhere [e.g., (37, 38)], and so the current paper focuses solely on assistance, protection, and detection dogs.
Reports of using dogs for protection can be found as early as 700 BC, but the advent of modern police dogs only dates back to the early 20th century (39). Police dogs are used in law enforcement to aid in the apprehension of suspects, deterrence of crime, securing of points of entry, and locating of people or substances of interest. Similarly, the military trains single-purpose patrol dogs to scout, search buildings, and use controlled aggression. In addition, single-purpose detection dogs serve to locate explosives, narcotics, contraband, pests, and many more odors [e.g., (40, 41)]. Many law enforcement agencies and the military also rely on dual-purpose dogs who are used for both protection and detection. Search-and-rescue dogs are trained to find either live humans or human remains and can be trained for response in urban disaster settings or wide-area wilderness settings (42).
Thus, from helping people with disabilities safely and confidently navigate their environment to aiding in the safeguarding of our communities, working dogs provide numerous benefits at both the individual and societal level. They not only fulfill these key needs—often outperforming technologies designed for the same purposes—but they also enhance the lives of the people with whom they work through the human-animal bond (18, 43, 44). However, the process of identifying and training dogs with potential for success in these roles presents many challenges.
The first hurdle is determining how to source the dogs. There are several common models, all of which have their own advantages and disadvantages. Many assistance dog organizations (45) as well as some military dog organizations [e.g., the Swedish Armed Forces; (46)] maintain their own breeding programs, which is beneficial for several reasons. Breeding decisions can be informed by generations of information, affording organizations greater control over the health and characteristics of their dogs. For example, Guiding Eyes for the Blind reports that, through selective breeding, they have decreased the rates of hip and elbow dysplasia in their population by over 90% in the past 30 years (47). Also, organizations with their own breeding programs report the highest success rates for dogs from their own breeding programs (48, 49). However, dogs still need to occasionally be brought in from outside sources to maintain genetic diversity. Furthermore, breeding programs can be costly. One approach to improve success in breeding programs is to adopt a cooperative approach in which dogs who are suited for other careers are exchanged with complementary organizations (50).
The traditional approach to sourcing dogs for search and rescue is a community-based model (51). In this setting, individuals identify a dog with the potential physical and behavioral characteristics appropriate for a search dog (52). This individual approach may include identifying breeders with a history of success or simply a trial-and-error approach with individual dogs. This approach is labor intensive for the individual and results in a variable success rate. Recently, some organizations have established programs in which trained search dogs from select breedings are available for pairing with handlers (e.g., Penn Vet Working Dog Center, Maranatha Kennels).
Another option which has great public appeal is to identify dogs from shelters or rescues to be trained as working dogs (51). This approach serves the double purpose of fulfilling a working need and providing a home to a dog. In theory, it represents a lower cost model, given that organizations are not responsible for the breeding and rearing of candidate dogs. However, this model has several challenges with identifying and training dogs to become successful working dogs. While medical conditions are (usually) readily screened, behavioral potential is difficult to evaluate (53, 54). Furthermore, dogs are often placed in shelters or rescues due to behavioral problems (e.g., fear associated with the environment or people, resource guarding, dog- or human-directed aggression) that are unsuitable for working dogs (55, 56). Although some programs have been successful in this approach, the financial investment can be greater than that for a breeding program or other acquisition approaches, especially if the organization maintains responsibility for adopted dogs who do not meet the working dog requirements. Thus, utilization of shelter and rescue dogs is best seen as a complementary approach until improved screening can be developed to clearly identify candidates that possess the physical and behavioral traits to be successful in a specific working career.
Finally, many smaller assistance dog organizations purchase dogs (57), and it is also common for the military to procure dogs from overseas (58). When acquiring dogs, the organization has the advantage of selecting only dogs who meet the physical and behavioral requirements, but current behavioral tests are imperfect and still result in a sizable proportion of dogs being subsequently rejected for behavioral reasons (57).
An additional obstacle is that, even after undergoing rigorous selection and training, large numbers of dogs who enter training fail to complete these programs, largely for behavioral reasons (59–61). The consequences of unsuccessful dogs are numerous. Often, dogs are not deemed unsuitable until a year or two of age, at which point large amounts of time and money have already been invested in them. It is estimated that around 50–70% of assistance dogs are ultimately released from professional training programs (62), and the release rate can be as high as 80% for dogs acquired from a shelter (63). In addition to improvements in resource allocation, increasing the success rate of dogs in training also has welfare implications (64). For example, dogs bred for placement in protection roles often have characteristics, such as high motivation (sometimes referred to as “drive”), reactivity, and energy levels, that make them difficult to keep as pets. Similarly, accurate identification of dogs who are unlikely to succeed in working roles can eliminate potentially stressful transitions that these dogs would otherwise face (e.g., beginning a professional training program only to be rehomed shortly after initiation of this process).
To address these challenges, we advocate multiple avenues by which to improve the process of producing effective and healthy working dogs, that can ultimately lead to the placement of more dogs with a greater potential for success and welfare in these roles. We summarize key findings from the empirical literature regarding best practices for assessing, selecting, and improving working dogs, and conclude with future steps and recommendations for working dog organizations, breeders, trainers, and researchers.
What Factors Will Optimize the Process of Placing Successful Working Dogs?
One opportunity to optimize the production of working dogs occurs at the stage of deciding which dogs to train for working roles. The goal here is to refine and improve predictions of which dogs will ultimately complete training, and beyond that, thrive throughout long and productive careers. In practice, these evaluations can act as tools for information-gathering across relevant domains, but how they are applied and the subsequent cost-benefit analyses will vary based on the specific industry, the size of a given organization, the age at which training starts, and the origin of the dogs (e.g., from a breeding colony, private breeder, shelter). Importantly, implementation of these tests and criteria are meant to identify suitable candidates and thereby make selection more efficient, but would not result in improvement to the overall pool of dogs from which future candidates could be selected. Ideally, the selection process would take into account multiple factors that affect a dogs working ability, including various facets of the dogs behavior and cognition, early environment, and preferences. Below, we highlight factors linked to success, as indicated by prior research, in each of these areas.
Behavior is a major factor when it comes to placing working dogs. Accordingly, there has been a large research focus on determining which specific elements of canine behavior are necessary, and which are disruptive, when it comes to the ability of working dogs to perform their roles. Several reviews have been written about this topic in recent years, including an assessment of the behavioral tests used to select assistance, protection, and detection dogs (65), as well as other papers summarizing the behavioral and cognitive features believed to be important in the selection of detection dogs specifically (66–68). Additionally, studies have documented the qualities deemed most important for detection dogs by their handlers and trainers (69, 70).
In Table 1, we summarize 33 empirical studies that have assessed behavior in candidate (ages 3 months to 4 years) and active (ages 2.5–11 years) working dogs in order to determine associations with a work-related outcome. In addition to focusing on participants of a specified age range (i.e., 3 months and older) and with a reported outcome associated with a specified role (i.e., assistance, detection, and protection), included studies were published between January 1983 and November 2020. In the vast majority of these studies, the outcome metric used was qualification—i.e., successful placement—as an assistance, protection, and/or detection dog, with the alternative being that the dog was deemed unsuitable and released for behavioral shortcomings. For a handful of studies, the outcome measures were instead performance on specific job-related tests [e.g., on working dog trials: (94); on a Military Working Dog suitability test: (95); on an annual search test: (93)] or trainer assessment of ability (63, 82, 85, 96). And finally, two studies addressed the longer-term efficacy of working dogs and therefore only included subjects that were already initially placed as detection dogs; the first study investigated factors contributing to the longevity of a successful working dog career by comparing active dogs vs. those that had qualified but were subsequently withdrawn from service (61), while the other analyzed what behavioral features predicted speed of drug detection (92). Although not every aspect of behavior measured in each of these studies predicted success, at least a subset of measures in all of these studies had some predictive validity. TABLE 1
Table 1. Associations between behavior and outcomes in adolescent and adult candidate working dogs.
Across these studies, behavior was measured in two main ways. The first method, labeled in Table 1 as behavioral assessment, refers to experimental approaches in which dogs were presented with a set of tasks, situations, and stimuli while their behavior was coded or scored by a trained rater in a standardized way. One example of this sort of assessment is the Dog Mentality Assessment (DMA), designed by the Swedish Working Dog Association, which consists of nine subtests involving social encounters, play opportunities, unexpected events, and work-related scenarios such as searching and protection [e.g., (94)]. Another example is the In-For-Training (IFT) test, often used by assistance dog schools, which exposes a dog to six potentially stressful scenarios, including a looming object, a sudden noise, and a threatening stranger, in order to gauge the dogs initial reaction and subsequent recovery [e.g., (79, 83)]. While the majority of test batteries, like the DMA and IFT test, focus on temperament traits, it is also becoming increasingly common to track the cognitive abilities of dogs, as in the Dog Cognition Test Battery [e.g., (82, 91)]. These sorts of empirical evaluations of temperament and cognition are helpful because they can be objectively scored by a small number of trained observers and the standardized format allows for direct quantitative comparison between individuals. Furthermore, in many cases, results from these tests are robust to variation in scoring methodology and are reliable whether an evaluator codes discrete behaviors or assigns an aggregate rating (46, 85, 86). However, because these assessments are often administered at just one or two timepoints, they provide a “snapshot” that may not be representative of the dogs behavior in other contexts or points in time. Furthermore, these tests can be quite labor and time intensive to administer.
The second method of measuring behavior involves ratings by puppy raisers or trainers that reflect the subjective impressions, formed over a period of weeks or months, of someone who has spent a lot of time with the dog. Rather than watching a dog encounter different scenarios in real-time, the evaluator reflects on the dogs typical response to a variety of situations when filling out a questionnaire. An example of this approach is the Canine Behavioral Assessment & Research Questionnaire [C-BARQ; (98)], a survey that is usually completed by the puppy raisers of assistance dogs at 6 and 12 months, but can also be completed by the handlers of adult dogs. It asks the respondent about the frequency or severity of behaviors that fall into multiple categories, including aggression, fear, attachment, excitability, and trainability [e.g., (62, 79, 83, 95)]. Another example of this type of instrument is the Dog Impulsivity Assessment Scale [DIAS; (99)], an 18-item questionnaire that requires the respondent to indicate level of agreement on items about behavioral regulation, aggression, response to novelty, and overall responsiveness [e.g., (61)]. Questionnaire surveys are advantageous in that they allow for information-gathering on a large number of dogs in a short amount of time. Furthermore, each evaluator has extensive knowledge of the dogs temperament, preferences, and habits, accrued by watching the dog navigate many different real-world environments and circumstances on repeated occasions. However, having so many different evaluators can have its drawbacks as well; evaluators receive no training, what might constitute high levels of a behavior to one person might seem inconsequential to another, and evaluators may not always have sufficient contact or context to make accurate assessments. Thus, a handful of studies have benefitted by using data from both behavioral assessments and questionnaires in their predictive modeling (79, 80, 83).
In reviewing these studies, some common themes emerge regarding both desirable and undesirable behavioral traits in a candidate working dog (Figure 1A). For example, regardless of specific career path, multiple studies supported the notion that successful working dogs are highly trainable. Trainability and responsiveness was assessed using trainer ratings (84, 86), behavioral tasks (76), and questionnaires like the CBARQ (83, 95), puppy training supervisor questionnaire [PTSQ; (77)], and DIAS (99), which include multiple items asking the respondent to evaluate the dogs propensity to follow commands, learn new tasks, play fetch, attend to relevant stimuli, ignore distracting stimuli, and respond to correction. Additionally, using a measure of trainability based on an expert observers assessment of ease and speed of learning new tasks, Lazarowski et al. (88) found that detection dogs specializing in alerting to person-borne explosives scored significantly higher than standard explosives detection dogs. Other important traits across all working dog categories included those which facilitate a steady, positive response to the environment: successful working dogs routinely displayed confidence or an absence of fear (46, 86, 94), whereas unsuccessful dogs tended to be more anxious, and fearful of dogs, strangers, and non-social stimuli (49, 62, 76, 77, 79, 80, 83, 87, 95). The one exception to this was a study which found that Military Working Dogs who evaluators approved for further training displayed higher levels of fear-related behavior, such as barking, support-seeking, and active avoidance, than non-approved dogs (96). Finally, unsuccessful candidates were also more likely to exhibit body and touch sensitivity—i.e., uncomfortable and tense reactions when being physically handled during events like grooming or physical examinations (77, 83, 95). FIGURE 1
Figure 1. Behavioral traits implicated in the literature as associated with working dog outcomes. Here, we list the traits that have either been positively (+) or negatively (–) linked to successful working dog outcomes, categorized in the following ways: (A) traits common to all working dogs within the scope of this paper, (B) traits common to all assistance dogs, (C) traits common to all detection and/or protection dogs, as well as distinct traits unique to (D) guide, (E) service, (F) detection, and (G) protection dogs. These lists of traits are based on findings from the 33 empirical studies described in Table 1, and we have preserved the terminology used in the original papers. The relevant papers are referenced in superscript next to each finding, using the letters assigned to each paper in the first column of Table 1. It is worth noting that these findings are merely a reflection of the current literature; therefore, it could be the case that some of the traits that are only listed as important for guide dogs might also be important in service dogs, but the association has yet to be explicitly tested. In rare cases, the empirical studies supported contradictory results, and in those instances the disagreements are indicated with an asterisk.
The literature also identified a suite of traits associated specifically with assistance dog outcomes (i.e., that apply to both guide and service dogs; Figure 1B). For example, multiple studies indicated that aggression, whether evaluated by puppy raisers (83), trainers (49), or both (79), was negatively linked to success. Opportunistically chasing small animals (62) and displaying high levels of reactivity, measured across scenarios involving exposure to sudden loud noises, prey-like objects, and unfamiliar stimuli (72, 76, 80, 83), were also predictive of poor outcomes. Relatedly, dogs rated as having high levels of energy, excitability, and hyperactivity were less likely to be placed as assistance dogs (62, 73, 77). In particular, behavioral manifestations of these traits—specifically, pulling on the leash (62) and inappropriate vocalizing (78, 83)—were associated with disqualification from assistance dog programs. Taken together, these findings paint a picture of an ideal assistance dog who is relatively quiet, calm, and unobtrusive. These findings are intuitive given that, whether picking up a dropped credit card or steering their handler around a pothole, both service and guide dogs frequently work in public settings where they must exhibit socially acceptable behavior.
Whereas guide and service dog populations share certain qualities that are either coveted or problematic with respect to their success, there are other features that they do not necessarily hold in common. For guide dogs specifically (Figure 1D), exhibiting high levels of distraction, and especially distraction with regards to other dogs, has been repeatedly identified as a trait that is detrimental to successful placement (49, 72–74, 76, 77). Furthermore, dogs who were visibly anxious around stairs (77, 79) or in training kennels (74, 79) were also less likely to graduate as guides. Finally, one study found that guide dog candidates who performed poorly and engaged in perseverative behaviors on a multistep problem-solving task were more likely to be released from the program, providing the first evidence that variation in cognitive skills can hold valuable clues about working dog potential (78). In terms of favorable qualities, successful guides ranked high on ability to cooperate—i.e., willingness to please (71), docility—i.e., high levels of tractability and learning ability (73), courage—i.e., once frightened, the ability to overcome that fear (71), and adaptability or nerve stability—i.e., ability to concentrate in high-stress situations but remain calm in frightening scenarios (71, 77). Interestingly, strength and directionality of paw preference (believed to be a proxy for lateralization in the brain) were also linked to guide dog success (72, 75). One potential explanation for this finding is an association between motor laterality and fearfulness, which has been indicated by past studies (100–102). Taken together, studies suggest that being able to effectively focus attention and problem solve, as well as exhibiting an adaptable attitude, are key factors to guide dog success.
In terms of behavioral traits particular to service dogs (Figure 1E), Weiss (63) found that dogs who displayed high levels of panic behavior—operationalized as vertical activity (i.e., rearing up) when left alone in an empty room for a short time—were more likely to be rated as having low service dog potential. Intriguingly, Bray et al. (83) also found that coprophagic dogs were more likely to graduate as service dogs; however, Duffy and Serpell (62) found no difference in coprophagic tendencies between successful and released dogs when looking across five guide and service dog organizations. Finally, recent research has also identified cognitive abilities that appear to be useful to service dogs. Graduate dogs consistently displayed higher levels of social looking across multiple experimental contexts, including a social referencing task and an unsolvable task (82). Given that service dogs must respond to human-given commands, these results are consistent with the type of behavior that is expected from a service dog in performing their day-to-day duties. Furthermore, using awake fMRI, Berns et al. (81) determined that certain brain activity patterns observed while the dog was viewing trained
Choosing a service dog candidate: 5 common mistakes
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text] Wheather it’s time to look for your first or next Service Dog, knowing how to choose a Service Dog candidate is extremely important. What traits should you look for? What’s important? What doesn’t matter? There is a sea of misinformation that a Service Dog handler must sort through when deciding to choose a Service Dog candidate. Cut through the chaos and learn what what to look for while selecting a potential partner.
Imagine… as you wade into the wriggling pile of puppies and kneel in the middle, it occurs to you that one of these tiny balls of fur is going to be your friend, your partner, your focus, your pride, your companion, your joy and your worker. Not only will this puppy be all of the above, it’s going to be the ONE, the one meant for you, the one your soul already knows.
Musing over these thoughts as you allow the puppies to swarm over you, you idly pick one up and ask it, “Are you the one?”
Laughing as the puppy bites your finger, you gather the soft, fat critter into your arms, breathe in the intoxicating aroma of sweet puppy breath and day dream about all of the possibilities. The puppy wriggles for a bit in protest at being restrained but quickly quiets down, snugs its head against your belly and falls asleep. While you know that the Service Dog selection process is far from over, something in your heart says that this puppy is the right one.
The scenario laid out above is one that nearly every “dog person” is familiar with. Almost every single one of us has had a dog that “picked us.” Sometimes, the dog’s choice was a good one and sometimes, it wasn’t. Therein is the inherent problem, though. When the dog is allowed to choose his handler, the results are left in chance’s hands.
When you choose a Service Dog candidate leave as little to chance as possible. Even dogs who have been selected from an extensive line of well-bred Service Dogs, been trained and socialized to the max and have undergone extensive medical testing to ensure soundness for work don’t always make it to the completion of Service Dog training.
Being a Service Dog is super hard work and very, very, very few dogs are suitable. Maximize your chances of success by carefully considering your needs and desires, and then working to find the perfect Service Dog candidate. Don’t let a puppy pick you until you’ve narrowed it down to “almost no chance of failure.”
The simple fact of the matter is that we, as the two legged-members of a Service Dog team, are much more intelligent than our four-legged partners. The puppy that chooses you and tugs at your heartstrings may or may not be the proper puppy for your goals, needs, wants and disability. You, as the human half of the team, must carefully consider several factors in order to choose a potential partner that has the most likely chance of not only succeeding as your canine lifeline and Service Dog, but of also enjoying every single step along the way. Remember, the destination is meaningless without the journey.
The solution, unfortunately, is not an easy or quick one. Picking a Service Dog candidate involves careful research, a lot of time and in-depth (and, at times, brutally honest) consideration of your goals, wants, needs and desires. Settle in, though, and hang on tight. We’re in for a whirl-wind trip through the confusing world of Service Dog selection. The following ten points (and a bonus) will allow you to carefully weigh your options and choose a candidate that’s perfectly suited for you.