The article before this one was originally authored on this site on 11/04/2008 - 11:09. It underwent periodic changes as things were updated during the process of the change in regulation which was delayed several times.
Two specific sections were written by me for this article in its final form, which was published between the time the Final Rule was published and the effective date for the new regulations. They are:
"On July 23, 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder signed final regulations revising the Department’s ADA regulations, including a revised definition of “service animal.” This final rule was published in the Federal Register September 15, 2010, and the effective date is six months after that publication."
Key changes include the following:
1. Only dogs will be recognized as service animals.
2. Service animals are required to be leashed or harnessed except when performing work or tasks where such tethering would interfere with the dog's ability to perform.
3. Service animals are exempt from breed bans as well as size and weight limitations.
4. Though not considered service animals, businesses are generally required to accommodate the use of miniature horses under specific conditions.
Until the effective date, existing service animals of all species will continue to be covered under the ADA regulations.
Existing policies that were clarified or formalized include the following:
1. Dogs whose sole function is “the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship” are not considered service dogs under the ADA.
2. The use of service dogs for psychiatric and neurological disabilities is explicitly protected under the ADA.
3. “The crime deterrent effects of an animal's presence” do not qualify that animal as a service animal and “an animal individually trained to provide aggressive protection, such as an attack dog, is not appropriately considered a service animal.”
These two passages, and the intervening quote, miraculously appeared on sfgsservicedogs. When that site's owner was notified of the copyright violation, she quickly changed her page, then claimed it was not copied. Fortunately, I have a screenshot to share, so you can compare for yourself.
So you can see it's a copy. How did I find it, you ask? Well someone joined our forum and posted an ad for her facebook site. We looked it over and it was basically a blank page. We thought perhaps it was some newbie who didn't understand the ethics of spamming and decided to wait three days and see if the person returned to actually participate in the forum. Or whether they were just a spammer looking for free advertising. After three days with no return, I rechecked the ad and the facebook page it pointed to, and what do you suppose I discovered? That my content had been copied over there in the intervening three days. So I sent a notice of copyright violation and told them to take it down. I did a Google check and found two other sites that had also copied it. And told them to take it down. I have to do this often because we get scraped a lot.
Now she's claiming she's never been to our site before, though I have her registration on file from four days ago. And she's claiming that that language is either in the public domain, or that she had permission to use it, neither of which is true. I have full revision history for our article and can show exactly when (to the minute) each quoted portion was put on the site, but it was before the effective date (March 15, 2011) while hers appeared in October, 2011. Which came first?
You be the judge.