Wednesday 26 September 2007

Detroit Zoo

While in the vicinity, we decided to visit Detroit Zoo with a couple of friends. One has a Labrador Retriever assistance dog for mobility assistance, and the other has a Yorkshire Terrier psychiatric assistance dog.

So, we cut quite a sight, four women with three dogs wanting to visit the zoo. (Not something too unusual, we'd done the same together in San Diego some 18 months previously). Entry was straightforward, we were informed that staff would be informed of our party and know that the dogs were bona fide assistance dogs. Fair enough.

Not twenty yards into the zoo we were challenged by another member of staff, asking if the dogs were all assistance dogs. We gave suitable assurances and were allowed on our way. Sometime later, we were aware that we were being followed and after exiting one of the reptile houses were challenged again ... and again when the member of staff following us joined in.

They made disparaging remarks about the size of the Yorkshire Terrier suggesting anyone could put an assistance dog vest on a dog and claim it was such. No such challeneged were made of the Labrador or of my dog, Caesar.

This set the tone for the whole visit and we were constantly followed and watched, so much so that we decided to split up in the end so the staff would have to decide who to follow.

Staff seemed to want to see certification of the Yorkshire Terrier, which in USA under the Americans with Disabilities Act is illegal. Not once did they ask for certification of the Labrador or my own Golden Retriever ... it was a salutory lesson in the harassment of people who have non standard breeds for their assistance dogs.

I wish I could say there was a positive outcome when we complained before leaving, but alas, no.

1 comment:

Tanya said...

The Detroit Zoo was a nice Zoo, but left a bad taste in my mouth after being "stalked" by a staff member throughout our time there. Being partnered with a Labrador, I can only imagine the problems faced by those partnered with what others consider an unconventional assistance dog breed. The verbal apology of one staff member was not enough, and should have been followed up by a personal apology from the offending staff member as well as an offer of compensation for the cost of entry paid to spend a few miserable hours being followed by and challenged repeatedly by staff members.