Can military bases discriminate?

Aaron1124 · Oct 30, 2010

I ask this, because my uncle had a recent experience. My father is a Master Sergeant in the Army Reserves, and recently was taking my uncle (which is his brother) on base at Fort Lewis. My uncle is visually and hearing impaired, and thus has a service dog in which is uses to help guide him, and alert him to sounds when he's at home or in public.

Now, upon going to base, and according to my father and uncle, the conversation went as the following:

Base guard: "Hey, is that a Pit Bull? We don't allow Pit Bull's on base, per Fort Lewis law."

My father: "Yes, but it's a service dog for my brother."

Base guard: "We do not allow Pit Bulls on base. Period. There are no exceptions, unfortunately."

My father: "My brother is disabled, and needs his dog to help assist him with daily functions. The ADA says there are no exceptions for where he can take his dog."

Base guard: "I'm sorry, but you'll have to take it up with the base commander or military police. I cannot allow you on with your dog."

At this point, my father gets fed up and turns around. My uncle didn't seem too bothered by it, although he is a vietnam war veteran himself. It was my dad who felt they violated my uncles rights.

These are all of the details I know as of now. My question is, can a Military base legally tell an individual whom is disabled that they cannot come on base with their service animal, if the specific breed is restricted?

eye95 · Oct 30, 2010

I would say it depends on how the regulation is worded. The gate guard is likely full of it, and should have been challenged by requesting his supervisor come to the gate. I can't imagine the regulation not having an exception for service animals. If it doesn't, it probably runs afoul of the ADA, but that would require a court challenge to establish.

I would just question the use of a pit bull for a service animal. Justified or not (I think it is), pit bulls have a rep for being particularly dangerous. While I would not challenge the right of someone to have a pit bull for a service animal, I think it is unwise, simply because of how others would react and how easy it would be to get an animal that would be just as serviceable, but without the rep.

(I hate having to put the disclaimer, "While I would not challenge the right..." in this post, it has become necessary due to the prevalence around here of late of assuming that advising against amounts to denying rights.)

Aaron1124 · Oct 30, 2010

I see nothing here that exempts Military bases at all..

http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm

Seems the only way they can be denied is if they pose a direct threat or nuisance to others.

eye95 · Oct 30, 2010

Unfortunately, it will take a court case to establish that such a regulation runs afoul of the ADA.

However, there is still the possibility that the gate guard is talking through his hat. Step one should be challenging his assertion with the powers that be on that base. I'm enough of a jerk that I would have demanded the guard's supervisor come out and verify the policy, putting his butt on the line in doing so.

SIGguy229 · Oct 31, 2010

Hopefully your dad got the guards name...I would have him make an appointment with the base Provost Marshal and explain the situation. Then ask the policy be changed IAW the ADA

Aaron1124 · Oct 31, 2010

SIGguy229 said:
Hopefully your dad got the guards name...I would have him make an appointment with the base Provost Marshal and explain the situation. Then ask the policy be changed IAW the ADA

He got his name, and followed up with me. He called "Someone in authority" and was unable to get a hold of him via phone, so he left a message with his name, number, and briefs of the scenario. Hopefully he'll hear back from him.

zack991 · Oct 31, 2010

eye95 said:
I would say it depends on how the regulation is worded. The gate guard is likely full of it, and should have been challenged by requesting his supervisor come to the gate. I can't imagine the regulation not having an exception for service animals. If it doesn't, it probably runs afoul of the ADA, but that would require a court challenge to establish.

Agreed When I was at Fort Polk LA they had the same policy, unless it was they where a service dog.

I would just question the use of a pit bull for a service animal. Justified or not (I think it is), pit bulls have a rep for being particularly dangerous. While I would not challenge the right of someone to have a pit bull for a service animal, I think it is unwise, simply because of how others would react and how easy it would be to get an animal that would be just as serviceable, but without the rep.

The reason they have a bad rap is ghetto scum have perverted the uses of their high drive and strengths for illegal purposes and the media glorifies it by giving it air time. More than half the time those fools in the media miss label any dog as a pit when any bite occurs. That and the "dog community" pushes the breed as just any other dog breed, this is extremely stupid and dangerous. Read about the breed. Educate yourself about the American Pit Bull Terrier. Every breed has certain traits; while each dog is an individual, each breed has certain general characteristics. Pit Bulls of correct temperament are gregarious, friendly, athletic, and intelligent. They love people and they love to be engaged in activities with their people. Pit Bulls are not suited to be left alone in a yard; they want to be inside and part of the family. They are not suited to be guarding or protection dogs. Pit Bulls require daily exercise. They are very trainable and generally enjoy learning new things whether it be tricks, obedience, or sports. You will need to keep your dog physically and mentally exercised. You can not be lax or half train any breed and this is HUGE deal with any strong breed such as a pit bull. It is fools who think they can handle this strong breed and do no training and treat them just like any other dog breed. Those groups have zero business owning a pit bull, all those idiots have done is damage the breeds name. They are used as drug dogs, K9s and are used in rehabilitation centers and out preform most of the most common breeds you see. When you channel their high drive into jobs such as those they excel. Sorry but when misinformed people generalize the breed it drives me insane. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJueekvhRDI

(I hate having to put the disclaimer, "While I would not challenge the right..." in this post, it has become necessary due to the prevalence around here of late of assuming that advising against amounts to denying rights.)

rant over................

eye95 · Oct 31, 2010

I have read. A lot.

I see just as much support from pit bull advocates saying that there is essentially no difference in danger between breeds as I see from those who claim that pit bulls are inherently more dangerous.

The point is, regardless of where one falls in this debate, why use an animal with a bad rep (justified or not), when there are so many other breeds without the rep?

A judge I know says that the dog bite cases she sees are almost exclusively the breeds that have bad reps. She attributes it to the temperaments of the breeds as well the abilities of these breeds to do much more damage than the typical dog.

I come down on the side that says pit bulls are unnecessarily dangerous. However, I respect the right of folks to own dangerous things. They just need to be willing to accept responsibility for bad things that happen.

But, again, my remark was solely in regards to the wisdom of having a service animal that has a rep of being dangerous, when there are so many other animals as well suited, or likely better suited, to the task.

Aaron1124 · Oct 31, 2010

I'd much rather get attacked by a Pit Bull than a Caucasian Ovtcharka, Tosa Inu, or Fila Brasileiro.

And why is there a thumbs down by my post?

eye95 · Oct 31, 2010

Aaron1124 said:
I'd much rather get attacked by a Pit Bull than a Caucasian Ovtcharka, Tosa Inu, or Fila Brasileiro.

Which supports my point that different breeds differ in the level of danger they present. Since pit bulls are seem to be involved in so much more litigation than other breeds, they are likely more dangerous than most other breeds.

Again, this is not to say we should abridge the right to own that breed.

On edit: I thought the thumbs down was an editorial comment. I am glad to see it wasn't.

Aaron1124 · Oct 31, 2010

Nope. The thumbs down wasn't intentional. I may have accidentally clicked it when I went to "submit reply", but I can't seem to take it away.

Bookman · Nov 1, 2010

This sounds more like a lack of specific training than anything else. I'm betting that an apology will be tendered and the matter will be corrected by the Provost Marshal.

rotorhead · Nov 1, 2010

Bookman said:
This sounds more like a lack of specific training than anything else. I'm betting that an apology will be tendered and the matter will be corrected by the Provost Marshal.

Exactly.

Please contact the Provost Marshal on post directly. Do not waste time contacting any subordinate directorates as they will ultimately divert and refer their decisions to the Provost Marshal anyway. If you don't get an answer from the Provost Marshal in sufficient time (say...two hours or so) contact the Post Commander's office directly.

A matter as easy as this one should not go as long as a day to resolve. Anything longer is simply ridiculous.

OldCurlyWolf · Nov 1, 2010

eye95 said:
Unfortunately, it will take a court case to establish that such a regulation runs afoul of the ADA.

However, there is still the possibility that the gate guard is talking through his hat. Step one should be challenging his assertion with the powers that be on that base. I'm enough of a jerk that I would have demanded the guard's supervisor come out and verify the policy, putting his butt on the line in doing so.

I would have called for the Provost Marshall and put his butt on the line. He is supposed to be responsible for enforcing "Base" regulations.

:cuss:

Coded-Dude · Nov 1, 2010

Ironically, Labrador's are responsible for more bites in the US than any other dog. One could chalk that up to a larger number of ownership of said dog. Either way, pits get a bad rap due to irresponsible ownership.

eye95 · Nov 1, 2010

Coded-Dude said:
Ironically, Labrador's are responsible for more bites in the US than any other dog. One could chalk that up to a larger number of ownership of said dog. Either way, pits get a bad rap due to irresponsible ownership.

To get a clear picture, one would want to look at bites per dog and typical severity of the bite. More bites and more severe bites mean more litigation. As I mentioned earlier, I have been told by a judge that she almost exclusively hears dog bite cases about the breeds who have the rep for viciousness.

Therefore, I believe the rep to be deserved. However, again, that is not to say folks do not have the right to own a pit. They just need to be responsible for any bad outcomes.

Aaron1124 · Nov 1, 2010

Here in Washington, the state legislature allows counties and cities to enact ordinances to create special housing and fencing for "potentially dangerous dogs". Potentially dangerous dog is any dog that has shown signs of attacking without reason - ie; being provoked, if the "victim" was trespassing, etc.

Most cities here have certain fencing requirements for the property where the dog lives.

frommycolddeadhands · Nov 2, 2010

Aaron1124 said:
I ask this, because my uncle had a recent experience. My father is a Master Sergeant in the Army Reserves, and recently was taking my uncle (which is his brother) on base at Fort Lewis. My uncle is visually and hearing impaired, and thus has a service dog in which is uses to help guide him, and alert him to sounds when he's at home or in public.

Now, upon going to base, and according to my father and uncle, the conversation went as the following:

Base guard: "Hey, is that a Pit Bull? We don't allow Pit Bull's on base, per Fort Lewis law."

My father: "Yes, but it's a service dog for my brother."

Base guard: "We do not allow Pit Bulls on base. Period. There are no exceptions, unfortunately."

My father: "My brother is disabled, and needs his dog to help assist him with daily functions. The ADA says there are no exceptions for where he can take his dog."

Base guard: "I'm sorry, but you'll have to take it up with the base commander or military police. I cannot allow you on with your dog."

At this point, my father gets fed up and turns around. My uncle didn't seem too bothered by it, although he is a vietnam war veteran himself. It was my dad who felt they violated my uncles rights.

These are all of the details I know as of now. My question is, can a Military base legally tell an individual whom is disabled that they cannot come on base with their service animal, if the specific breed is restricted?

Back to the original question. Can a military base ban a certain type of animal from entering the base? Sort of. Anyone who is military here knows that base housing has certain rules as to the number and type of pets military members are allowed to have on station, as well as set leash laws and such things that are common in most communities.

Also the base commander can actually prohibit specific people from entering the base if they have cause. (eg a military spouse who is a convicted pedophile or other individual who has posed a threat to the base community) In this case however, it must be against an individual and for cause. A blanket denial based upon race, creed, religeon, etc would be unlawful discrimination and not possible.

Having said all of that, it is possible that the base has a housing policy against military members keeping pitbulls as pets on base, especially if there had been a previous problems with a pitbull, but I seriously doubt the ban was meant to encompass working/service dogs. I think the gate guard may have been a bit confused.

Even if there is such a 'no pitbull policy' on base you could likely have obtained a waiver from the Mission Support Group Commander (or whatever the Army equivalent is) The MSG commander is basically the mayor of the base. If the MSG commander wasn't available the base commander likely would have granted your request. All it would have taken was a phone call to the command post and they probably could have gotten you a green light in a matter of seconds once the situation was explained.

Hope that answers your question.

eye95 · Nov 2, 2010

frommycolddeadhands said:
Back to the original question. Can a military base ban a certain type of animal from entering the base? Sort of. Anyone who is military here knows that base housing has certain rules as to the number and type of pets military members are allowed to have on station, as well as set leash laws and such things that are common in most communities.

Also the base commander can actually prohibit specific people from entering the base if they have cause. (eg a military spouse who is a convicted pedophile or other individual who has posed a threat to the base community) In this case however, it must be against an individual and for cause. A blanket denial based upon race, creed, religeon, etc would be unlawful discrimination and not possible.

Having said all of that, it is possible that the base has a housing policy against military members keeping pitbulls as pets on base, especially if there had been a previous problems with a pitbull, but I seriously doubt the ban was meant to encompass working/service dogs. I think the gate guard may have been a bit confused.

Even if there is such a 'no pitbull policy' on base you could likely have obtained a waiver from the Mission Support Group Commander (or whatever the Army equivalent is) The MSG commander is basically the mayor of the base. If the MSG commander wasn't available the base commander likely would have granted your request. All it would have taken was a phone call to the command post and they probably could have gotten you a green light in a matter of seconds once the situation was explained.

Hope that answers your question.

Under the ADA, the military will be specifically barred from banning a pit bull if he is a service animal. They can write and enforce all the policies they want on the subject, in the end, the courts will force compliance with the ADA--without the need for a waiver.

SFCRetired · Nov 2, 2010

As a retired NCO, my first call would have been not to the Provost Marshal, but to the Post Command Sergeant Major. It has been my experience that, should you want a knot jerked in someone's tail, Sergeant Majors are the folks to see. I've seen them quietly and politely chew a brigadier general's biblical beast of burden.

My two cents' worth: the gate guard was confused/improperly briefed on post regs.

Can military bases discriminate?

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member