Re: “Sorry, no kangaroos: Service-animal impostors face crackdown” (Feb. 22):

I wholeheartedly agree with having some sort of state and/or federal certification for any “service animal.”

I work in the affordable-housing field and daily see requests for “service animals” to be allowed because of a disability (we are then not allowed to ask what that disability may be).

More often than not, these are large dogs, or multiple dogs, which wouldn’t meet our lease guidelines if it weren’t for the “service animal” loophole, which prevents us from putting size, weight or breed guidelines on “service animals.”

Many of these “service animals” move in and scare our older residents because they are untrained, unmonitored and being housed in too small a space for their breed’s size. I find that many people are misusing the title of “service animal” to ensure that they are allowed to move in animals that would not normally be allowed.

They don’t have to pay a deposit for the animal (if you receive any Housing and Urban Development funding, you are not allowed to charge a deposit), and they don’t have to follow the same rules as they would for a typical pet (i.e., leash rules, etc.).

I also find it disheartening that so many doctors and medical professionals sign off on the need for a “service animal” without actually having a conversation with their patients as to what their intentions are.

There are many people who own service animals who truly need them and have obtained an animal that is truly trained to service them. There seem to be many more people who are misusing the title to simply bring their pet along with them.

Jamie Hussey

Gorham