Hacker News Reader

Comment by CydeWeys | Hacker News Reader

I'm sick and tired of the increasingly rampant abuse of the "service animal" category for people to bring their pets along with them wherever.

I don't want to deal with a dog next to me for an entire flight and I sure as hell don't want to deal with a fucking horse.

Most of the animals I see flying are clearly just pets and not actual service animals, going on how poorly behaved they are.

View on HN

I understand all the indignation about people who lie about having a service animal. But are people so rage-filled about this issue that they're not even the least bit fascinated by the fact that the ADA explicitly includes miniature horses as permitted service animals?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/35.136

Dogs and miniature horses--that's it. There's clearly some hidden history and science here. Come on, this is HN! Shouldn't there be several ranchers and at least one legitimate miniature horse service animal owner-operator eager to explain to us the world of miniature horse service animals? What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of miniature horses as compared to dogs? How small can the horses get?

EDIT: The above link is for a regulation regarding government entities; here's the regulation for places of public accommodation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/36.302

I think part of the reaction here is the very idea of a horse. A horse! On a plane.

To read your link though, it says "reasonable" accommodation. It specifies that part of the assessment of reasonable accommodation is if the horse must be house broken.

Can you imagine having a non-housebroken miniature horse in your row with you? I find this hilarious and I hope it happens to me just for the story.

(i)Miniature horses.

(1)Reasonable modifications. A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.

(2)Assessment factors. In determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility, a public entity shall consider -

(i) The type, size, and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility can accommodate these features;

(ii) Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse;

(iii) Whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and

(iv) Whether the miniature horse's presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.

(3)Other requirements. Paragraphs 35.136(c) through (h) of this section, which apply to service animals, shall also apply to miniature horses.

I wonder what they do for long flights when the animal needs to use the bathroom.

Honestly I have never seen a diaper for a horse.

They do exist, and you see them on working horses to prevent the horses from pooping on the roads.

It's not so much of a diaper, though, and more of a burlap sack that's suspended like a hammock underneath the "business end" as it were.

Note that this only works for poop; I haven't seen any solution for the voluminous amount of pee a horse can produce.

> I think part of the reaction here is the very idea of a horse. A horse! On a plane.

I got the impression that people were glossing over the details and assuming that it's just an extreme example of airlines being required (if at all--lots of misconceptions abound) to unquestionably accept people's eccentric, ridiculous, and [arguably] illegitimate accommodation requests, such as the recent peacock incident that made the rounds.

Granted, the news reporting has done an exceptionally poor job at distinguishing service animals from therapy animals, and the sources of and justifications for various regulations and policies. But the ambiguity and seeming absurdity is precisely what caused me to dig further and discover that miniature horses are distinguishable. But that only leads to even more questions.

The article states that miniature horses live 35 years or longer, whereas dogs have a much shorter lifespan. Presuming both are equally difficult to train, this is an obvious advantage.

Yea I’ve see people slap fake service vests on dogs. They will yell at you and tell you that you can’t legally ask them if they are disabled. Also seen people in apartments get letters from therapists when they have large or aggressive breeds that aren’t allowed.

The other day I was in a coffee shop. They asked someone to remove her dog and she started a fit about how it’s her service animal. I laughed pretty hard and got a mean look. They went outside to sit and I doubt her tea cup chihuahua was a trained service animal.

"They will yell at you and tell you that you can’t legally ask them if they are disabled."

This isn't true, by the way. Businesses aren't allowed to verify the legitimacy of a service animal because that's seen as discrimination, which is most of the problem in itself as it allows any random person to buy a $10 vest from Amazon and use it as a "bring animal everywhere free" card.

But there's nothing prohibiting random people like you or me from questioning the legitimacy of a service animal, and if someone gets super defensive about that question, odds are good that it is indeed a fake service animal.

In what way is verifying the service animal is legitimate discrimination by any metric? Said person has already announced their disability by bringing the animal, the business is clearly willing to serve them, I don’t see a remote argument to the contrary.

> (6) Inquiries. A public accommodation shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person's disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. A public accommodation may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. A public accommodation shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Generally, a public accommodation may not make these inquiries about a service animal when it is readily apparent that an animal is trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability (e.g., the dog is observed guiding an individual who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person's wheelchair, or providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with an observable mobility disability).

28 CFR § 36.302(c)(6) https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/36.302

Seems to me that there should be a corresponding responsibility not to knowingly misrepresent an animal as a service animal. Seems like something that should be criminal, to me.

28 CFR § 36.302(f)(8) says,

> Investigation of fraud. A public accommodation may investigate the potential misuse of accessible seating where there is good cause to believe that such seating has been purchased fraudulently.

I don't know if there are any remedies available beyond civil tort and contract money damages, nor what the applicable criminal statute would be, if any. Seems like a complex area of law, but from reading bits of legal commentary dredged up with Google I get the impression that the government is deliberately erring on the side of reducing friction for the legitimately disabled and are well aware of the unintended consequence of increased fraud.

This happens in the concert scene. I was in a fan community where there was a spill of drama over someone feigned a disablement to get disabled seating tickets. They were outed and it was messy.

"and if someone gets super defensive about that question, odds are good that it is indeed a fake service animal."

Or maybe they don't want to defend their right to a service animal to every single person that asks and thinks their animal is fake? This strategy might unveil some fakers, but it is also incredibly derisive to those with these animals to be lumped into the same group as fakers.

Give the service animal a "license plate" that can be verified on a government website? I guess they could be copied or falsified fairly easily.

chip it.

Unless you're going to put chip readers in every place of public accommodation, this won't help much.

it wouldn't be hard or expensive for places that care about allowing service animals to get a chip reader.

Every place of public accommodation, i.e. all businesses, are required to allow service animals. "Caring" isn't optional.

many places don't care to exclude pets at all. they don't care. many places might decide its not worth caring about if its a real service animal or not. they don't care. the only places that care are the places that would want to actively exclude non service animals.

but theres no official body to certify them. first youd have to come up with what counts and what doesnt.

at the moment anyone can start up a certification business. its like being ordained.

Legislate everything is not the answer. Bus that's prob what's going to happen.

Love it when people say "Odds are..." based off anecdotal information and no data whatsoever.

I have a service animal, and honestly it's emotionally exhausting to have random people start yelling at you. Even when I drop everyone to go digging through my phone for documentation, half the time they kick us out anyway.

It's a weird experience when your well trained service animal is kicked out of a NYC McDonald's that has people openly shooting up in the bathroom. Like, which of these is the bigger public health issue.

For those with poorly trained animals, or people just pretending, we do need a better system though.

To clarify, I was speaking about the business. I have no problems confronting people about it.

Breed restrictions are generally moral-panic-driven bullshit anyway, so I have zero issue with countering bullshit with bullshit.

I will agree with you when they start toting around service Clydesdales.

Was her car parked in the handicap space with a fake permit displayed in the window?

The next time you're seated next to a dog, just let me know and I'll happily switch seats with you.

(Wake up, airlines. You nickel and dime us for everything else, let me pay to sit next to a dog already).

I've seen some pretty poorly behaved, barky, aggressive "service" dogs, that also have accidents. I doubt you'd want to sit next to them for the duration of an entire flight.

Is there some size-threshold where the service/therapy animal must have its own seat? Larger than will fit in a duffel bag at your feet? Encroaching on neighboring passenger's legroom?

The article does say "airlines are still allowed to reject certain approved animals if they're deemed too large, too dirty, or too dangerous"

I guess every generation has their own ways of coping with anxious situations. I remember sitting next to and old catholic lady who spent 10 minutes praying on her rosary beads before takeoff. A bit more compact than a horse I guess.

Faith in god won't carry your luggage though.

I can't imagine owning a horse/donkey/mule of any size and not using it as pack animal at every available opportunity.

The statute does not permit a miniature donkey or mule.

The other day I saw a HUGE pitbull with a service dog vest (or whatever they are called) at a Costco. It was right next to me in the line and it was clear that the owner was in no way disabled.

I was not happy for those few very long minutes in the line. And there was no way in hell that I was going to ask that owner if his service dog was legitimate.

> it was clear that the owner was in no way disabled

How good are you at identifying epileptic people who aren't currently having a seizure?

Fair enough. But do you need a bloody pit bull as a service dog? Can't you have an animal that is less likely to harm other humans, especially kids.

Edit: My issue with pit bull is not about their reputation, since I have no way to verify that. It's more about their size and their ability to cause bodily harm.

You know, this is quite prejudicious. You think that most common service dog, labrador or german shepherd, won't cause you harm if it wanted to?

> You know, this is quite prejudicious

Personally I have an issue with any large dog around me and kids in public spaces.

They are faithful to their owners, not the entire humanity.

Service animals are probably the best trained dogs you'll ever meet.

Perhaps, if they genuinely are service dogs.

But no one is verifying that they are indeed service dogs since it seems businesses can't.

Also, as I said dogs are loyal to their owners not all humans.

Labs are even bigger, do they bother you?

Yes

Yeah, sometimes. Any poorly behaving (e.g. aggressive) dog can be scary, especially larger ones.

My issue with pitbulls is they keep attacking my golden retriever.

The flipside is that these actions can also be cruel to animals. I've sat next to one very very miserable non-trained service "comfort" dog on a long flight, who unfortunately got sick (vomiting) mid-flight.

Worth noting though that if the dog has to fly, this is by far the most humane option. Eg, crating them into the belly where horrible things have already happened (trapped on Arizona tarmac for an hour in full sun comes to mind) shouldn't even be an option.

Unfortunately, due to what you mention it seems it's most humane to drive your pet across country rather than a relatively short flight.

Maybe they should do occasional special "pets allowed" flights where you can bring your pet with you in the cabin. It'd be great for people moving cross-country with their pets, and the flights wouldn't need to be that often.

As a benefit, this would avoid exposing people with allergies to pets on random flights; if you book the weekly pet flight, you know what you're getting into.

Most airlines won't put animals in cargo any more after too many of those things have happened.

Which totally makes sense. There's way too much liability or risk of negative PR in carrying pets in the cargo hold.

Airplanes are for people anyway.

My family drove 21 days and 11,000 km from Canada to Panama because the airline refused to allow our dog. It was July and the flight had a layover in Houston. I could see the problem there with the heat in the hold, but we all risked our lives and went through a lot of trouble because the airline couldn't accommodate a Shiba Inu in the cabin. The dog needed a visa for every country we passed through. With notarized veterinary report duly sanctioned by the embassy of every country. Some expired before we could make it to the border and we had to resort to bribes and other techniques to get through. It was a farce because there were stray dogs, goats, cats, pigs, and other animals crossing as they pleased at many of these borders.

The airline refunded our tickets, but only after we rejected their helpful suggestion to put the dog down and fly without him. Bet you can guess the airline.

There are companies whose sole expertise is moving animals long distances domestically and internationally. I imagine it's not cheap, but it is an alternative. Weird that the airline wouldn't suggest that.

On the other hand, I see some fun & adventure in the three week drive from Canada to Panama.

Moving with pets across international borders is pretty much always guaranteed to be a pain. Between the permits, quarantines, etc., it's a nightmare.

There's no way I'd fly with my pet dog given the horror stories of those that do. At best, pets seem to get sub-par treatment, at worst, they are abused and die. I'd think pretending they're a service animal so they can fly _with_ you is better than putting them in a cage and in with the luggage, at least for the animal.

Personally, I think people that need service animals deserve that right and should be respected. So I just don't fly with my dog. No real need to, there are plenty of local boarding options, including "doggie daycare" places where he's never locked up.

"I'd think pretending they're a service animal so they can fly _with_ you is better than putting them in a cage and in with the luggage, at least for the animal."

Yeah, but it's really bad for all the people out there with legitimate medical issues who do actually need service animals.

Very true. Those pictured horses cannot be enjoying getting crammed into the legroom of a seat. Seems like cruelty to animals to me.

Most of the animals flying are just pets. Many airlines allow small pets in the cabin; there is no requirement for them to be service animals.

That's true, however, I think most airlines (for sure, Delta, AA, United, Jet Blue, Alaska, and Southwest):

1. Require non-service pets to be kept inside a carrier for the duration of the flight.

2. Charge customers that bring a pet, whereas service animals fly free.

I've seen a few non-service pets on flights, but I've seen service pets far more frequently (based on the fact that they were not in carriers).

They also limit the number of pets per flight. Or, they used to. Once it became fashionable to pretend pets are service animals my wife and I opted to drive or not bring the dogs with us, so I'm not sure if those rules still exist but I would assume they do. Prior to that it was actually great. Most people rarely even knew they were with us. Oh well.

Yup. Apparently we need to amend HIPAA, or ADA, whatever it is. If you have a need, it should be documented. And then an appropriately-trained airline (or grocery store, or..) staff person should be able to look at your documents.

They don't have to know what your disability is. You shouldn't have to suffer the indignity of every single passer-by on the street asking you if you really have a need and what it is.

But some kind of basic common-sense framework would curb abuses, which hurt everyone -- the legitimately disabled people the most!

People are allowed to bring pets on planes. So yes, most animals on a plane are likely to be just pets?

Exactly. This 10^32 times.

It's affluenza, "victimhood"-exploiting, pseudo-disability BS. My elderly and frail grandparents never had a disability placard, yet their neighbors had one for at least 30 years without a real disability; the neighbor had one because they were slightly disabled (low %) per compulsory military service discarge. That's understandable, but what's not is this "special-needs" living security blanket that gives others allergic reactions and creates a nuisance to others.

If the animal can't behave, there oughta be away to give feedback on the customer/animal such that they won't be able to fly with their fluffy nuisance.

Service animals are chosen from particular breeds, from particular breeders and highly trained. It's a totally different thing than a random dog with a "service" vest.

I think there is a legal difference between a service animal and an "emotional support animal" with the latter having far less stringent requirements and also little to no legal obligation for people to accommodate

It is also a security loophole. Imagine if 5 hijackers each brought a trained “emotional support” Rottweiler. A trained Rottweiler would be much more dangerous than the pocket knives that are currently banned.

If people think that animals in the workplace are unprofessional because people may have allergies or fear dogs, then surely public transport applies even more.

Almost all the animals I've seen flying were well behaved.

That said, I would still much rather sit beside a service animal than a poorly behaved child (or adult).

If the airlines wouldn't charge $150 each way for a pet in a carrier, I think the problem would recede.

There are legitimately much higher costs in shipping a pet than, say, the same weight in luggage. Why should passengers be subsidizing others people's pets?

I travel a lot, and I know what a huge burden it would be for me to have a pet, so I don't have one. I have drought-tolerant houseplants which can recover from a week going without water. Too many people have pets and then expect others to make unreasonable accommodations for them, when owning a pet is a choice that they made.

I'm sick and tired of the rampant aggressive judgmental attitude of under-qualified hyper-opinionated loud mouths on these flights complaining about everyone else and not minding their own business.

Who the hell are you to say whether a person is in need of something or not? I live in a country where disabled people are left to rot because their particular disability is not transparent enough; Employees are afraid to leave their house while recovering after major surgery in case someone thinks they look healthy enough to be working.

If our current understanding of equality for the disabled force airlines to let miniature horses on (which i very much doubt) then they should be forced to do this in a safe and non-interruptive way or be heavily fined.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com