.png)
4 months ago
2
Several months ago, I did something I rarely do and took a hard line on a polarizing topic: allowing dogs (or other pets) into private businesses. I believed, and continue to believe, that dogs should not be permitted in coffee shops, gyms, hardware stores, grocery stores, or (God forbid) restaurants, unless they are a licensed service animal: that is, an animal that assists persons with a legally recognizable disability (typically blindness, which carries a legal definition as well). If the animal doesn’t fit this classification, the business has the absolute right to say “no pets”—dogs, cats, hamsters, Madagascar cockroaches, and the like. And, therefore, emotional support or therapy dogs do not count. Sorry, your therapy peacock can’t come to the airport with you.
Much to my surprise, virtually all commenters voiced their support for my position in my article. They recognized the growing tendency for customers to abuse the notion of “pet-friendly” establishments by adopting the default position that all places to encourage pets (mostly dogs), rather than the universally understood rule to be “no pets unless otherwise indicated”, at least until about ten years ago, or even as recently as the pre-COVID days. To be frank, most dog owners don’t ask and simply assume they can bring their pooch in to an establishment when they purchase a pick-me-up. And business owners, not wanting to alienate their customer base, hesitate to voice any objection. After all, most dogs are only at an establishment briefly, the majority are well behaved, and quite a few other customers enjoy seeing the dogs; they often become a social lubricant (no doubt a deliberate effort on the part of some dog-owners). Since few people elect for the role of curmudgeon who vocally opposes the presence of an adorable fluffy dog, the condition of dogs in private businesses is usually a non-issue. And, as a result, the dog restriction gets abused routinely. What would have been rare ten or fifteen years ago—the presence of a dog in a coffee shop—is now something most locally owned business owners encounter almost daily in 2025.
For the pro-pets contingent, my position likely becomes a “much ado about nothing” scenario, and I’m the insufferable Karen for bringing it up. But perhaps it’s better me than the owner of Jumpin’ Java or the Mighty Bean? After all, if a small business owner gets that insufferable Karen reputation, it will likely hurt his or her bottom line. But I cannot get past the most subversive tactic for bypassing the no-pets rule: the christening of “therapy dogs” to shoehorn legitimacy to bringing any and all animals into privately owned establishments. (No, a doctor’s letter cannot christen an untrained, unlicensed pet into an emotional support animal.) As I indicated in my November 2024 article (the one with more responses), no legal definition of “therapy dogs” exists: they are not licensed, and, if the owner claims some disability that prompts the need for an emotional support animal, the disability itself does not achieve protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Conversely, a blind person’s seeing-eye dog absolutely does earn this protection, meaning it is not a pet but an accessory to aid that person amidst his or her disability—which is one of many reasons a true guide dog often wears labels that say “DO NOT PET”. It’s not there to stimulate nurturing instincts among strangers. Furthermore, since a seeing-eye dog is not a pet, businesses that exclude it are engaged in illicit discrimination of a disabled person.
But I’ve witnessed dog-owners entering establishments with “Emotional Support Animal” embroidered on their doggo’s little harness/vest. This constitutes abuse of the good faith that inspired the ratification of the ADA, and while most people likely mean no harm, these therapy dogs—or just the average person’s random pet—have not received anything remotely resembling the training of a licensed seeing-eye dog. It’s not just the possibility that such a dog could relieve itself or jump on another customer’s table and devour the food. I’ve never seen this happen, and if it did, the owner would have every right to ask the dog and its owner to leave immediately. The bigger concern is the unlikely but feasible event of an illegitimate therapy dog (AKA a “pet”) engaging with a guide dog (a tool for the disabled person). And, as my October commenters appropriately noted, the possibility of an untrained dog getting in an altercation with a guide dog is not worth the risk, since a guide dog injured in a fight is likely to get decommissioned, making the guide dog’s owner the hapless victim of some other pet owner’s carelessness and laziness.
As this blog’s appointed Karen, I maintain my position that “therapy pets” is a fuzzy definition that should never achieve legal sanction, in the interest of promoting the well-being of genuine guide dogs and their owners. But the abuse continues unabated. The montage of images below reflect all the violations I’ve seen in small businesses (mostly coffee shops) in just the six months since I finished that “cute little dog” article. Forgive me if the images are often not all that great; I have to be surreptitious in taking pictures of other people’s pets. This isn’t about the cuteness of the dog; that is the blandishment that’s turning rule-enforcers into the bad guys. Most of these pups are in the DC area, but they show that canines of all sizes get this red-carpet treatment, whether in a local chain, a corporate juggernaut like Starbucks, or a single mom-and-pop. And, since the violation is the same, it doesn’t appear that either Virginia, District of Columbia, or Maryland for that have distinct laws with any real teeth, bite, or a growl. Doggone it.
The lovable Labrador in the photos above is probably as well-behaved as one might expect from its breed, yet it is completely disingenuous to give it the “EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMAL” label. But the patch is probably enough to fool many people (including business owners who aren’t in-the-know) into thinking it’s a legit guide dog.
And yet, a few seconds later from the image in the photo, the owner was offering this Lab up for pets and scritches from admiring strangers–clearly not a guide dog.
Compare the photos above to the one here:
A poodle or poodle mix—as I suspect is the case for the breed to the right—isn’t the typical service dog that comes to mind for me, but that may reflect my own limited exposure. Poodles certainly rate highly—perhaps even the highest—for canine intelligence, so time has helped expand the parameters for “typical”. Not all service animals operate to serve people with visual impairments; they can function well for other mobility needs, for individuals prone to seizures, or those who need a dog’s superb sense of smell to detect sudden spikes or drops in blood sugar levels. The dog in the photo below was not there to aid owners with visual impairments, but the signage is precisely the right approach to convey legitimacy: “MEDICAL ALERT SERVICE DOG” and “DO NOT DISTRACT”. I will fully concede that these labels on a dog’s harness can be faked—a badge purchased online to grant legitimacy in much the same way as student driver stickers often are, which people might abuse so they can bring their pets around workplaces. But misrepresenting a service animal—one that undergoes training to receive certification—constitutes legally recognized fraud. And besides, with the laxity that is common in 2025, why would a person risk a criminal act through misrepresenting a service animal when they can just bring their puppy in for a puppaccino? Even the “EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMAL” charade isn’t really necessary.
Amidst all the guide dog posturing, I can at least include non-candid photos of one animal whose owners confirmed to me that their pup is the real deal. They let me take these pics.
This cream retriever went through the rigorous training as puppy, but then COVID-19 hit, and the ability to train him through the full array of certifications was impossible due to social distancing and business restrictions. By the time Montgomery County, Maryland had relaxed its policies (much later than most places in the country), this retriever was approaching middle age, so his owners sought to put him to use to the best capacity possible, rather than undergoing additional months of advanced guide dog training during a retriever’s customarily none-too-long life span. At this point in 2025, he works as a therapy dog (which of course doesn’t mandate licensure) in a pediatric oncology branch at the National Institutes of Health (which does). He operates to the fullest capacity for patients with compromised immune systems, responding to numerous commands. And he wears the credentials to prove it:
Though the owners didn’t indicate their direct need for a guide or therapy dog for any particular disabilities of their own, they consciously trained their dog as a community service gesture, so that this retriever can regularly grace children’s cancer wards, knowing exactly how to behave amidst children with delicate health.
Sadly, the photos above, which most likely show a legitimate uses of a licensed guide dogs, are the exception for private businesses. Here are a few more examples of therapy dogs or outright flouting of rules, which I collected over the fall, winter, and spring.Here are a few more collected over the fall, winter, and spring.
The logo on this cart should make it obvious: the customers are flouting the rules of a well-known megastore.
In the grocery section, no less!
And, in the previous blog, I emphasized the phrase “cute little dog”, because, while dogs can achieve guide dog licensure no matter how big or small (small dogs are perfectly good for sniffing sudden drops in blood sugar among diabetics), the fact remains that canines under 25 pounds are not likely to be large or strong enough to steer a visually impaired person effectively. So it’s almost certain that a small dog in a coffee shop is not a legitimate guide animal. But that doesn’t mean the big ones are all kosher either.
Here’s my favorite example though: it’s another location of the health club chain that I previously honored as an example of the right language to use to restrict pets. This fitness corporation clearly has done its research on how to politely but firmly and succinctly exclude therapy dogs, and it’s visible at the entrance to multiple locations I’ve encountered. But alas, here’s a different location from the one I featured in November.
What did my wandering eyes spy through the window? There in the blurry distance, to the left of the sign, is man’s best friend—guide, protector, psychotherapist. But let’s get real: there’s no space for Fido or Rover (who actually gives their dogs these names anyway?) on the workout bench, the treadmill, or the racquetball court.
Then again, if the staff don’t enforce it, what does it matter if these rules exist? Maybe you can even sneak your Samoyed into the sauna, and put a nice Finnish to the therapy dogs controversy once and for all.
![Test flight of yet another clone of Möwe, the wing used by Nausicaä [video]](https://www.youtube.com/img/desktop/supported_browsers/firefox.png)
18 thoughts on “Therapy dogs: stop crafting loopholes to fair, reasonable laws! (I’m watching you.)”
Amen.
Thanks. You’re always one-up on me in terms of your responsiveness!
When you wrote two days ago, I hadn’t yet promoted this article (STILL haven’t yet promoted it, at the time of writing this comment), primarily because I found a new photo that reflected an oversight. If you review the article, about midway through, there is now a pic with a black poodle. This pic (and the paragraph around it) reveals the correct way to represent a legitimate service animal, in my opinion. None of that fakery.
With this addition, the article is finally complete. I’ll promote it eventually, but probably not before you’ve offered more of your insights.
I don’t really care for dogs, and I do look with suspicion at any emotional support animal badging. There are places where they seem fine/appropriate, and others where they don’t. I’m not entirely sure what the relevant factors are.
Big box pet supply stores, sure. Small local pet shop, maybe not. Mall department store, no way. Wal-Mart or Target, still probably not. REI, Bass Pro, or other outdoor shops, sure. Bike shops are just as likely to have the owner’s dog chilling on a bed in the corner. Coffee shops, grocery stores, restaurants, gross. Brew pubs and tap rooms, yeah go for it, especially the ones that blur indoor/outdoor spaces. A small pub, doesn’t seem right. Lowes or Home Depot, probably fine but there’s not much point. So in my mind, maybe it’s just places with concrete or old worn wooden floors, I’m not really sure. Smaller mom & pop stores are probably more accommodating, but the bigger stores have more room for a dog to not be in the way. So I dunno.
I’m curious what you think about stores that have their own animal on the premises. How about bodega cats?
I’m pretty much of the opinion that a business has a right to include its own Komodo dragon, should it choose to do so. (Probably not a wise move for most business owners, but a Komodo dragon would probably keep the dog population down.) That said, SHOULD a business owner allow pets? Generally no.
I agree with most of the locations on your list: absolutely the places like Petsmart, which used to be a novelty in that they DID allow pets when most places didn’t. But the places in my photos above are coffee shops, cafés, and grocery stores. Gross indeed. In fact, I’d be stricter and say there’s no reason for anything but guide dogs at places like REI or Bass Pro Shops as well. Locally owned bike stores with a dog chilling in the corner? Yeah, pretty common, but that’s the business owner’s decision. Larger businesses that don’t explicitly accommodate pets (like Walmart or Target or Kroger) are setting themselves up for trouble because they have a large, mostly unmonitored space. With food items in doggie reach. Horrible idea to be lax, but small business run much lower risk in this regard. That said, it’s a risk even for the hippy bike store owner with his mutt in the corner.
What really grinds my gears is a culture that uses the vague premise “therapy dogs” as a blanket tool to shoehorn allowing dogs in all private businesses, often to the point that a business owner does not feel comfortable saying no–because, as most already know, they cannot say “no” to licensed guide dogs, which are not pets, any more than a landlord with a “no pets” policy is allowed to restrict guide dogs. None of them can. But 95% of the dogs we see in businesses these days have no legitimate reason for being in there, and if the business owner has an situation where a permitted guide dog gets attacked by a restricted “therapy” dog, the business owner could be held liable for not enforcing the rules consistently. And a guide dog, whether injured or not, could lose its commission if it behaves too aggressively and arouses suspicion that it isn’t as well trained as it appears. But lets be fair: even the most well trained dog will likely have a tipping point, and it’s entirely unfair to put legit guide dogs in a position where they must face down potentially aggress, untrained dogs in a setting where their disabled owners depend on them for day-to-day living, like shopping at grocery stores, etc.
I’ve seen a cat in a jewelry store–it was a staple of the place. It clearly was placid as heck and everyone liked it, but I’m sure the store owner ran a risk of alienating some people who were allergic or thought it was gross to have a cat on a glass jewelry counter. The owner’s choice. An institution in Indianapolis, Stout’s Shoes (oldest continuously operating shoe store in America), has long had (I believe) an African gray parrot as its “mascot”–now part of the business’s meme/promo culture.
I agree with you 100% on this
much obliged, but I was really hoping to get some dissident views. I need to better understand the case that some people are making, which explains the rampant abuse we see today.
There’s probably a lot of bandwagon jumping going on, but I think it’s all fairly new. I don’t remember dogs in businesses being a thing much before the days of Covid.
I thought I saw a lot of this starting about 10 years ago. I go to places frequented by single/childless people a bit less nowadays so I may have missed an uptick since covid.
Service animal?
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJVt_c_OgR2/?igsh=MW5pbm5hd2F1cWJrbA==
Never seen a service great Dane before, but anything is possible!
It’s also possible to fake your dog into being a “licensed” service dog, and while it’s illegal, most businesses are going to be too shy to ask.
This lovely young woman looks like an…ahem… Influencer.
Totally
I didn’t read yet, but I am 💯 with you on this!!
In Colorado, absolutely! Dogs EVERYWHERE!
Let me start by saying I agree but your “hard line” contains misinformation. Legally, there are three classes: service dogs, so named because they assist their disabled handlers, therapy dogs, so named because they provide a therapeutic benefit to the public, and emotional support animals, which is where a doctor “prescribes” a dog for their patient and where most of the abuse you describe is happening. Only service dogs have public access rights, emotional support dogs have the right to live in “no pets allowed” housing and on airplanes, although there have been so many problems on airplanes that they are cracking down. Certified therapy dogs, such as those registered through Alliance of Therapy Dogs, Pet Partners, or other, have no public access rights, and the national organizations stress that to their members. True therapy dogs are only allowed where they are invited, which includes hospitals, schools, nursing homes, and even some airports.
Thanks for sharing this and adding an additional layer of distinction. I knew there was a difference between true service dogs (formerly typically called “guide dogs” but I recognize that’s a limiting term) and therapy dogs, and I think you helped bridge that gap. The cream retriever in my photos is a therapy dog, and his owners admitted that they didn’t give him the requisite training to get him all the way to guide dog status (their original goal) because COVID-19 restrictions cut short their plans. But the retriever had all the training/licensing to be a therapy dog and is thus fully allowed and encouraged to visit hospitals and nursing homes, which his owners deploy so he can engage with and entertain pediatric cancer patients. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems service dogs require a higher level of training than therapy dogs.
These contrast with emotional support dogs (or cats or ferrets or iguanas), for which, if I understand correctly, the only licensure is a doctor’s “prescription” (recommendation). Training may be available for emotional support dogs, but isn’t necessary, and the licensure affords no special privileges. People might use the status to grease the wheel and save money in letting dogs into airports with pet restrictions, but that isn’t really any different from dogs without this emotional support status. After all, if you pay enough, most airlines will allow you to bring a dog, though perhaps under different conditions. I didn’t realize housing couldn’t restrict emotional support animals, and I suspect some property managers would challenge this in court…or that it varies by jurisdiction.
So I guess we have a hierarchy, with service dogs at the top (most training, and businesses must allow them), therapy dogs (some training, and certain public-serving businesses/institutions typically encourage them), and emotional support dogs (basically pets with a doctor’s recommendation). Doctors can legally recommend other specialists and pharmaceuticals. But an untrained dog is not a specialist, and the additional layer of scrutiny afforded to pharmaceuticals through pharmacists helps protect against abuse of this inanimate object. Dogs, as every owner will attest, have minds of their own and, without training, carry a great risk of acting up in a business, whether it be an airport or a coffee shop or (God forbid) a grocery store–which explains why more businesses are cracking down.
Feel free to correct me if I’m getting anything wrong. Thanks so much for your contribution!
Hi again. “Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems service dogs require a higher level of training than therapy dogs” In general, you are correct but there is crossover. There are a number of service dogs that are also registered therapy dogs. While guide dogs and hearing ear dogs usually need to be more focused on their disabled handlers, seizure alert dogs, wheelchair pulling dogs, PTSD dogs, and balance-mobility dogs seemingly can perform both jobs without conflict. Further, there’s a large number of excellent therapy dogs that are “career change” dogs, ie, puppies raised to be service dogs but did not complete service dog training for a variety of reasons, including being too social with people other than their disabled handler.
You are correct that emotional support animals have no public access rights other than housing and airplanes (Southwest is a “no pets” airline other than service dogs and emotional support dogs). Handlers cannot seem to get this straight, I cannot tell you how times I have had to point out that: 1) you have an emotional support dog, not a therapy dog, and 2) your emotional support dog does not have the right to be in a restaurant.
Here is a good chart https://images.app.goo.gl/vqDwVZYB3LYnhkVg8
This seems to characterize the cream retriever: a therapy dog that didn’t complete service dog training, though in this dog’s case the main reason was simply because training sessions got long postponed due to COVID social distancing.
Thanks for the chart! It definitely helps clarify. I think it’s interesting that emotional support dogs get to override “no pets” rules but therapy dogs do not. I’d imagine that “therapy” and “emotional support” get conflated semantically in many people’s minds (perhaps unconsciously, though just as easily deliberately)–and emotional support dog owners can exploit this, again either unconsciously or intentionally. After all, if people were surveyed to list the top 5 reasons they got a dog, “emotional support” would probably be there for 90% of people, regardless of whether it came with a doctor’s recommendation. Keeping this in mind, the similarity between emotional support and therapy seems rife with opportunities for abuse, and it’s a matter of time before a property manager suffers significant damage from an untrained emotional support dog and sues to challenge the policy, or have it overturned. I could easily imagine a class action lawsuit for that type fo thing.
I appreciate you sharing all this information! It’s helpful to get it consolidated on a single page.
You’re correct that emotional support dogs and therapy dogs get conflated, but the one I’m seeing abused more often now are PTSD dogs, which are service dogs, and emotional support dogs. The difference is that PTSD dogs are trained to mitigate their handler’s bouts of PTSD while most emotional support dogs are supposed to keep their owner calm simply by their presence.
By now, you’ve figured out that I’ve handled registered therapy dogs for 32 years; my profile picture is registered therapy dog partner #10 at an elementary school reading program. I also have an ADA-qualified disability, and registered therapy dog #4 (deceased) had balance-mobility service dog credentials. I regularly give talks on service vs therapy vs emotional support dogs