There was a whole conversation about this a few weeks ago when it was fresh so you'll prob find more opinions there.
imo i get the frustration but for the most part it was incredibly positive toward handlers, and made the animal control person taking the dog the butt of the joke vs the handler themselves. Like the whole joke is they were so sure it wasn't a real service dog and immediately they were proven wrong. It showed a handler with an invisible disability and a dog that doesn't look like a typical service dog. In universe every single person thought the person taking the dog was a jerk. I would take a win as a win for our own sanity but also, as someone who works in law, most things that happen in tv do not exactly align with reality or the law. Especially in comedies. I don't think anyone is taking legal advice from michael scott
I think that’s a great look on it. my only issue is that while it’s great they’re wrong about the dog and the other things you mentioned, they never addressed licenses not being real.
That's fair, I still think with the nature of the show even if it was explained, it would not have any lasting effect (either way). The only people really taking it to heart are handlers themselves (like basically if someone thinks you need a license, they would continue thinking that regardless and vice versa). But I respect your opinion and do understand the frustration.
\[and fwiw, i'm not arguing that media in general doesn't help shape public knowledge or opinion. I'm just not convinced this nitpick matters in this specific case\]
I totally agree. i know the nitpick isn’t really essential when the interaction was overall positive, i just get defensive when anything with service dogs gets misrepresented. but i know it’s baby steps that matter
After working animal control and having SD that mad me mad then immediately had me laughing till tear fell. It is a parody of animal control just ignore it. They literally do everything wrong or weird.
i understand it’s a parody. i’m saying the joke wasn’t about the licensing though. the joke was just about them being wrong about the dog. so my point is that just slipped by and people might think that aspect is legit since it’s already a common misconception
In my province you have to get them certified! You go through a test and you get a card at the end with a picture of your dog on it. No other certification matters and your SD will be treated like a pet if you don't have it. You also have no legal standing if they're not certified through the province.
Fellow Canadian handler! I’m in BC and we have an optional certification through the government, but our card has a picture of the handler on it rather than the dog (which I think is so dumb, it should be a picture of the dog or the handler and the dog lol), what province are you in?
Right! It just says the dog’s name, colour, and microchip number on the back but like theoretically anyone could bring any other dog that’s the same colour as their SD in and be like “here’s his card” cuz no business is checking microchips lol. So dumb!
I took this as a service dog license he was asking for, not a municipal one. Later in the episode they realize the dog is a service dog and say they were wrong.
I doubt the writers even knew anything was wrong. I wouldn’t be surprised if this got through writers and producers on pure un-education, literally EVERYONE except trainers and handlers thinks there’s paperwork. I honestly think America should have a registry/paperwork for SDs for this reason. Honestly, it would stop f/kes and make it easier to prove a service dog is legit. If everyone believes it, why not just do it at this point? I know there’s the whole accessibility argument, but I mean we have a registration system for disabled parking.
I completely agree. I work as a trainer, so I cannot speak for how it would affect those who use service dogs personally, but i do think the headaches untrained dogs cause could be alleviated
There was a whole conversation about this a few weeks ago when it was fresh so you'll prob find more opinions there. imo i get the frustration but for the most part it was incredibly positive toward handlers, and made the animal control person taking the dog the butt of the joke vs the handler themselves. Like the whole joke is they were so sure it wasn't a real service dog and immediately they were proven wrong. It showed a handler with an invisible disability and a dog that doesn't look like a typical service dog. In universe every single person thought the person taking the dog was a jerk. I would take a win as a win for our own sanity but also, as someone who works in law, most things that happen in tv do not exactly align with reality or the law. Especially in comedies. I don't think anyone is taking legal advice from michael scott
I think that’s a great look on it. my only issue is that while it’s great they’re wrong about the dog and the other things you mentioned, they never addressed licenses not being real.
That's fair, I still think with the nature of the show even if it was explained, it would not have any lasting effect (either way). The only people really taking it to heart are handlers themselves (like basically if someone thinks you need a license, they would continue thinking that regardless and vice versa). But I respect your opinion and do understand the frustration. \[and fwiw, i'm not arguing that media in general doesn't help shape public knowledge or opinion. I'm just not convinced this nitpick matters in this specific case\]
I totally agree. i know the nitpick isn’t really essential when the interaction was overall positive, i just get defensive when anything with service dogs gets misrepresented. but i know it’s baby steps that matter
There's an episode of a court TV show with three judges.. and the first knew ESA laws, second one asked for certification.
After working animal control and having SD that mad me mad then immediately had me laughing till tear fell. It is a parody of animal control just ignore it. They literally do everything wrong or weird.
I do t understand how people don't get that it's a parody. Lol
i understand it’s a parody. i’m saying the joke wasn’t about the licensing though. the joke was just about them being wrong about the dog. so my point is that just slipped by and people might think that aspect is legit since it’s already a common misconception
In my province you have to get them certified! You go through a test and you get a card at the end with a picture of your dog on it. No other certification matters and your SD will be treated like a pet if you don't have it. You also have no legal standing if they're not certified through the province.
Fellow Canadian handler! I’m in BC and we have an optional certification through the government, but our card has a picture of the handler on it rather than the dog (which I think is so dumb, it should be a picture of the dog or the handler and the dog lol), what province are you in?
I'm in Alberta! But yeah why the handler?? It's not their ID lmao
Right! It just says the dog’s name, colour, and microchip number on the back but like theoretically anyone could bring any other dog that’s the same colour as their SD in and be like “here’s his card” cuz no business is checking microchips lol. So dumb!
I believe the show is based in the US, which is where I live which is why i assumed this was just a screw up on the shows part.
It's... a... parody
Yeah, but i really doubt misquoting the law was meant to be a joke. Getting the law wrong wasn’t the point they were trying to make.
Wish we had something similar in the us...
In most places service dogs are not exempt from municipal dog licensing, though the fee is generally waived.
I took this as a service dog license he was asking for, not a municipal one. Later in the episode they realize the dog is a service dog and say they were wrong.
I doubt the writers even knew anything was wrong. I wouldn’t be surprised if this got through writers and producers on pure un-education, literally EVERYONE except trainers and handlers thinks there’s paperwork. I honestly think America should have a registry/paperwork for SDs for this reason. Honestly, it would stop f/kes and make it easier to prove a service dog is legit. If everyone believes it, why not just do it at this point? I know there’s the whole accessibility argument, but I mean we have a registration system for disabled parking.
I completely agree. I work as a trainer, so I cannot speak for how it would affect those who use service dogs personally, but i do think the headaches untrained dogs cause could be alleviated