Jennifer,
While I don't concede it should all appear absolutely innocent to a casual observer, you do have a valid point about evidence. At least from my point of view I really don't want this to be about her, or some kind of attempt to "find out the real truth" which will be impossible unless she tells us.
So what do you think about the following hypothetical situation. Let us suppose person A that has no seizure condition of any kind requiring a service dog has a friend, person B, who has a seizure problem and a seizure alert dog. Lets assume person A borrows that dog from person B and brings a dog along backpacking. That dog is indeed certified as a medical alert dog, therefore by the letter of the law this is allowed. The laws says both that she must need the dog, but can only be asked what it was certified to do.
I'm curious, do you think in this hypothetical situation person A was gaming the system? If so would you object to the behavior?
If instead there WAS no person B or pre-certified dog at all, and person A used the system to get a mail order certificate with the express intention to use it to allow them to bring their dog into an NP. How would you feel about that case? What if that person then published instructions for how any totally healthy person can bring a pet dog along into a NP following a set of simple steps. What would you think then?
I'm not being flippant. I really am trying to put my finger on the place where this apparent divide in opinion is taking place. Amongst other reasons, it's interesting.
