Not Gatekeeping Doesn’t Equal “Free Pass”
There’s been some discussion in the service dog communities regarding gatekeeping, calling out other handlers, calling out “fakers”, and overall service dog behavioral etiquette. We’ve been tagged in several of such posts, many of which have been extremely aggressively worded, targeting other members of the community, and as such, the time has come to write this post on the subject.
All of us mods are in agreement that gatekeeping is wrong, but what do we mean by “gatekeeping”? When I say that I don’t believe in gatekeeping, I mean that I believe in giving handlers the benefit of the doubt. If I see a handler with an ill-behaved SD, I do not assume that they are not disabled, nor do I assume that they just dragged their pet into the store.
None of us have the ability to determine what is going on in the background of a person’s life in a two-minute window at the checkout line at Wal-Mart, and unless we are employed at that location, or the handler in question is directly interacting with us, it’s none of our business.
Not gatekeeping means that we don’t make snap judgments without further investigation, and any action taken should be done in an appropriate, civil, and legal manner, with the intent to come to a peaceful resolution, and not for the sake of arguing, venting our own frustrations, or, worse yet, mocking a complete stranger on the internet where they cannot defend themselves. That being said, none of the above means that we in any way condone irresponsible SD handling, be it the use of a dog who should have been washed out a long time ago, the use of fake IDs, or any other kind of illegal misrepresentation or behavior.
Not gatekeeping doesn’t mean we believe people should have free reign to do whatever they see fit, it just means we believe someone is innocent until proven guilty, and that the ultimate goal should be to assist someone with their disability and help them come to a legal solution.
A few days ago, we were confronted with the opinion that it is okay for a service dog to lunge at strangers, exhibit strong prey drive while on duty, or show otherwise problematic and potentially dangerous/aggressive behavior, because “gatekeeping is wrong” and “no dog is perfect”.
This is not what we believe in. This is not an acceptable or legal standpoint, and additionally it is an incredibly dangerous situation for both the handler and their service dog.
It is true that no dog is perfect, as they are living beings and not machines. And yes it is incredibly frustrating to invest time and money and affection into a dog who is behaviorally unfit to be a service dog. It is frustrating to have a dog who performs tasks flawlessly, whom you have bonded with, but who is unreliable in the face of squirrels, stray cats, or other dogs. And I believe that when dealing with people who stand before such a difficult decision, an immense amount of tact and understanding should be involved.
Because realizing when it’s time to give up and accept your dog’s limitations is an incredibly difficult decision, especially for someone who is disabled and depends on their service dog to help them get through their day.
But it’s still a decision that has to be made. Understanding that it’s a shitty situation to be in doesn’t negate the fact that it’s there, and that something has to be done. We cannot just decide that, just because it sucks, that they should just go ahead and continue working a reactive and aggressive dog.
Not wanting to gatekeep doesn’t mean you get a free pass to make things harder for the SD teams that come in after you. It just means we’re going to use civil rationale and the law when we discuss the problem with you.
Not wanting to gatekeep doesn’t mean you get a free pass to work an aggressive, reactive, or otherwise unfit-to-work service dog. It just means we’re going to show you some compassion along the way.
titsay
prguitarman
gracieabrams
baratheonpilled
turnnoffyourmind
theartofmadeline
