Are all working dogs afforded equal respect?
Mum & I wanted to post about a situation we encounter on a daily basis. People seem to have a great deal more respect for assistance animals working with those who have visual impairment than those animals working to assist in other areas. If we had a dollar for every time Mum has to explain that I have the same rights as a guide dog, we would be billionaires. It seems appropriate to recount an incident that occurred outside Coles at Melbourne Central a little over 12 months ago. As Mum was about to enter, the guard stopped her & said “you can’t have that dog in here”. Mum replied that the commonwealth disability discrimination act of 2009 allowed her entry. The guard stated, “only guide dogs are allowed in here”. This encounter demonstrates the public’s ignorance of dogs assisting those with disabilities other than blindness. We wanted to examine some of the reasons for this, and explore some options for combating public ignorance.
One way of reducing ignorance is through awareness campaigns. The campaigns run by the various Guide Dog organizations in this country have been enormously effective. One potential reason for this is that, guide dog schools are able to achieve a high degree of brand recognition. Thus what they have to say carries some weight.
Another reason for the success of public awareness campaigns is the identifiable equipment the dogs’ ware. Guide Dogs use the same equipment nationally. This makes it easy for them to produce ads around how to identify a guide dog, and how to interact (or not) with one. Further assisting in this respect is the fact that the 7 guide dog schools in Australia predominately use two breeds, the Labrador & Golden Retriever.
Unfortunately, creating a similar campaign to educate the public about dogs who assist in other areas will have to succeed on different merits. This is due to a number of factors. Firstly, our equipment is not as recognisable as that of a guide dog. The reason for this is that assistance dogs support people with a wide variety of impairment. Hence, we perform a wide variety of tasks for our humans. The tasks we perform sometimes require specialized equipment to facilitate them. In addition, our equipment is customized according to our partner’s physical capabilities.
Secondly, what are considered ‘desirable’ traits of instinct and personality will vary depending on the tasks required by our humans. These traits are innate, rather than trained & therefore a large selection of breeds are put to work as assistance dogs. Unfortunately, however, the public perception (in AUS at least) is that only Labradors & Golden Retrievers are suitable for assistance dog work. Though this is far from the truth, the perception persists.
Thirdly, the coats assistance dogs wear are no longer considered a sure sign that a dog is an assistance dog. This is due to the recent rise of the animal fashion industry. Prior to the beginning of the last decade dogs almost never wore coats, except for the purpose of identifying them as working dogs with a legal right to enter public buildings. Now days, doggie fashion is so popular that the mere presence of a coat no longer conveys the same message it once would have.
And it’s not just the general public. The government is at it as well. There are obvious discrepancies in the way Victorian legislation treats Guide Dogs, as compared to other types of assistance dogs. The transport act, for example, provides that Guide Dogs & Guide Dogs in training may travel on public transport without the need for any particular documentation; however, other types of assistance dogs require a government issued pass. Discrepancies like this can be found across most pieces of relevant Victorian legislation. How can we expect the public not to discriminate on this basis if the state government can’t do it?
How then do we go about combating the ignorance of the general public? Firstly, it’s Mum & I’s firm belief that the first step is to always stand up for our rights, regardless of how intimidating the person trying to trample them is. Mum has threatened to call the police more than once. Though it appears to take a lot of ‘guts’ it’s really about knowing the name of the relevant act. It’s also worth noting that mum has never had to actually call the police. Further, even if they are the ones making this threat if you don’t back down they tend to get the message. It’s also worth thinking about contacting the media or posting on social media. In this highly competitive corporate market companies are extremely keen to avoid bad publicity. This may be used to our advantage, as such interactions with the media are often able to achieve results. It’s worked for many a guide dog team.
Secondly, finding affective ways to educate the public must be a priority. We pointed out earlier that there are challenges, however, it can be done. One-way might be to create an add campaign demonstrating the ways dogs can be used to help people. Another, more grass-roots-approach is for teams to start shearing there experiences on social media. If enough of us are able to share our stories the diversity will become self-evident.
This article attempted to examine the apparent ignorance of the general public in respect to working dogs assisting those with disabilities other than blindness. We have given you what we believe are the reasons for this, as well as some ways it may be combated. What do you think? Are their factors we haven’t considered? What are they? Are there other ways to combat the problem?
