Letters to the Editor: Fake ‘service’ dogs brought into the hospital — they’re a problem

To the editor: I appreciate the increased awareness that Nadav Ziv brings to the problem of dog owners going just about everywhere with their pets in L.A.

I have worked in a local hospital for 20 years, and only in the past three years have I experienced people bringing their non-service dogs to clinic visits. We are allowed to ask only two questions: Is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? And what work has the dog been trained to perform?

It’s not hard for owners to get around those questions. We aren’t allowed to request documentation.

It’s pretty clear when a dog isn’t a true service animal. They wander around the clinic room, their vests often look dirty, and their owners don’t handle them the way owners of service animals do.

Service animals are very important to those who benefit from them, and becoming one requires a rigorous training program. Those who wrongly call their dogs service animals diminish the stature of these training programs.

As with so many other issues, it comes down to awareness and treating others the way we would like to be treated.

Linda Marie Randolph, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: While Ziv makes some valid points, the accompanying picture showing unleashed dogs at Veterans Barrington Park begs for clarification.

I am one of the early morning scofflaws (and a veteran) who congregates on what we call the “gopher field” with our free-roaming dogs. The Department of Veterans Affairs property is maintained by the L.A. Department of Recreation and Parks, and the seven-acre site is riven with holes that makes the field unsafe for youth sports. Except for rare sandlot activities, the ground lies fallow and beckoning.

There’s an adjacent “official” off-leash dog park typically used by dog walkers during midday. The community of dog people is amiable and responsible because we respect the tacit privilege we’re granted at a venue where a dog can be a dog.

Regrettably, owning a dog doesn’t automatically confer sterling character or education upon the owner. Consequently, there is a minority of dog owners with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.

Gary W. Dolgin, Santa Monica

..

To the editor: The question is not, “Why can’t dog owners obey the rules?” The question is, “Why won’t dog owners obey the rules?”

Humans have the ability to (that is, can) obey rules. The issue here is that some dog owners choose not to (that is, won’t) obey rules.

I don’t have the answer to why some people believe that they have a special status that allows them to disregard rules that were established to benefit everyone in our society. I do know that their selfish sense of entitlement damages our society.

Jo-Ann Shelton, Santa Barbara

..

To the editor: A section of the Silver Lake Reservoir rim bulges out to become what the community calls “the meadow.” For years, community groups worked with the L.A. Department of Water and Power to finalize the continuous path around the reservoir, and with deliberation, it was decided that the public would be best served by excluding dogs from the area.

Signs clearly state that dogs are prohibited, and there happens to be a sizable dog park on another side of the reservoir. And yet, owners bring in their dogs.

Why can’t L.A. dog owners obey the rules? The answer I get when I ask are, “I live in the neighborhood,” “I keep my dog off the green and on the path,” and “No one pays attention to the signs.”

No embarrassment, no apology — just claims of entitlement.

Dorcas Tokes, Los Angeles