Hacker News Reader

Comment by smt88 | Hacker News Reader

Some of the other comments seem to miss vital information in the article.

ESAs (emotional support animals) are not the same thing as service dogs[1]. There's debate about whether they're even effective[2].

Not only does this mean that people with ESAs likely don't need their dog as much as people with service dogs, it also means ESAs don't have the same legal protections. The only places that are required to accept ESAs are airplanes.

In any other context, only service dogs are protected.

1. From the article: "The [Americans with Disabilities Act] states, 'dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.'"

2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/07/02/t...

View on HN

Here is the problem - you are a restaurant owner and someone walks in with a dog wearing some sort of blue or red vest with an official looking logo. What do you do? If it is a real service animal, you don't want to grill the poor disabled person for the dogs paperwork, you want to be a good guy, so you do nothing, and bunch of dog owners abuse that goodwill by bringing their dogs places they shouldn't.

You aren't allowed to ask for paper work anyway. Here is all they are allowed to ask: "A public entity may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform." See section f at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/35.136

That said, just asking people with apparently inappropriate dogs what task the animal has been trained to perform would be a first step towards removing fake service animals. If they can't answer, I assume there is something you can do, but I don't know what that is exactly. It may depend on your state.

In the case of a specifically badly behaving fake (or even real) service animals, section b of the same document says: "A public entity may ask an individual with a disability to remove a service animal from the premises if - (1) The animal is out of control and the animal's handler does not take effective action to control it; or (2) The animal is not housebroken.", so a dog barking or pooping in a business can definitely be ordered removed.

Thank god one lawmaker had the for thought to consider edge cases. The law seems entirely unreasonable until you get to the last paragraph.

Yeah, that's a public entity, which is:

"Public entity means -

(1) Any State or local government;

(2) Any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government; and

(3) The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and any commuter authority (as defined in section 103(8) of the Rail Passenger Service Act)."

Ding ding ding! This is the first fact that everyone I know in SF that abuses ESAs 'licenses' whips out.

This appears to be the wrong law to be citing.

I believe the ADA is https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-126

a private business can ask if an animal is service dog:

[1]Businesses may ask if an animal is a service animal or ask what tasks the animal has been trained to perform, but cannot require special ID cards for the animal or ask about the person's disability.

[1]https://www.ada.gov/archive/svcanimb.htm

The solution to that has to do with circumstance. Is the dog behaving fine? Then who cares? If its not, you get a manager and they ask if the dog is required, citing the problem. I don't see a need of doing all of this when every dog walks in.

By the time you need to fetch a manager to get them to inquire about the dog, it's too late: the damage has already been done.

If nothing else, it is cheating and unfair to people who are respecting the law. Imagine it isn't finding a loophole where you can pay to get your dog in a restaurant, but a loophole where you can pay to get your child into a better school. Society works better when we all follow the same rules.

Exactly this. The more you learn about the faking, the more suspect legit owners become and then it becomes a hassle.

I find it mildly annoying to see dogs in restaurants and grocery stores, even more so in the work place, but I've heard of a lot of people abusing these laws here in LA to be able to get into apartment buildings that don't allow pets.

As a neighbor, if you're animal isn't well-trained, I don't want to live near it in an apartment building. Were I someone allergic to pet dander, I wouldn't want to unknowingly live somewhere that a dog/cat had lived for years no matter how well you cleaned it. Especially at the expense we have to pay for rent in this city.

I think taejo has it right in her/his comment about how US owners act about this stuff:

"I don't think this would fly in the US, where cultural attitudes tend to be less "we've all got to do our bit to make society pleasant for everyone" and more "it's a free country and this is my dog, I'll train it if I want to"."

What I don't understand about ESAs especially on airplanes are what about people who are scared of dogs and who have issues w/ dogs?

Personally, if there was a dog on a plane I was flying that would make me extremely uncomfortable and nervous.

You can't request that a legitimate service animal be removed because you're afraid of it, you're only option is to get your own service animal to keep the dogs at bay, e.g. a Tiger. Such is the MAD doctrine of service animals.

Not to mention, there's a non-insignificant portion of the population that's allergic. Generally it's not life threatening but most commonly it'll lead to cold like symptoms (nose/head congestion, trouble sleeping).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com