US ends era of emotional support animals on planes
bbc.com
bbc.com
And of course, the reason this was bad was because inevitably, people abusing the system would screw it up for the people who actually need it or would benefit from it. Which is what happened.
That is hardly the only alternative. There are other forms of travel and it is quite likely that your pet will be better off at home with a sitter or boarded while you're gone.
I'm in that category as well, but that by no means entitles me to abuse measures meant to help the genuinely disabled for my own convenience.
The decision wasn't for my personal convenience. It's much more convenient to throw an animal in the cargo hold. It really is not fun to deal with an animal with you on a crowded plane. Convenience is not the motivating factor at least for me... it's simply treating the animal humanely, which to me means avoiding throwing them in the cargo hold for long haul flights.
Also, I'm perplexed by people's use of the word "humane" when it comes to pets. If you want to treat them humanely (as you would other humans), open your front door and let them walk out to freedom. I've owned and will own pets again...but it's preposterous to compare the animal to the human.
This is quite reductive considering that most pets are animals that have been domesticated by humans for hundreds and thousands of years.
In many cases we've bred them towards certain tasks and behavioral patterns, in the process we also bred out of them traits they often would need to survive in nature.
When humans did that then humans took on a responsibility, you can't just handwave that away with "these are animals, they are unworthy of any consideration".
> I've owned and will own pets again...but it's preposterous to compare the animal to the human.
It's preposterous to claim humans are not animals to justify inhumane treatment of other living, and in many cases highly emphatic, beings.
And not to get me wrong here: I'm not some kind of hardcore vegan who thinks all animal products should be banned. I'm merely recognizing that as the dominant species on this planet we have certain obligations towards the rest of it's inhabitants and particularly those we've utilized to get us where we are today.
I'm pretty sure my drunken parents' methods of pet care were not in fact humane or in any way to the benefit of the pets who were killed by it.
No, it does not. This is how I view those who abuse this loophole. Find another way to travel that doesn't impact everyone else in the aluminum tube traveling 550mph.
They are operating a scam. This was the only way around it.
I could understand if airlines kept a blacklist for people who have animals out of control, but they don't even do that right now with their absurd overcharging. I could also understand putting down a refundable deposit and a $20-40 charge(though you can bring much heavier carry-ons for free).
The airlines' practices are indefensible. They are wildly overcharging and it is clearly a scam.
It is sad they are closing this loophole that allowed people to end run the scammers.
Eg:"Not all animals are 10lbs, not all animals fit under a chair, not all airlines charge $250, not all flights are the same distance, it's not just a carry-on (disingenuous) not all flights make money (so how can you claim it's a scam when they lose money)
Etcetera. It's just a tedious and lopsided way to argue.
> The current policy amounts to a price restriction which requires that airlines forgo a potential revenue source, as airlines are currently prohibited from charging a pet fee for transporting emotional support animals
> Removing the current requirement that carriers must transport emotional support animals free of charge will allow market forces (i.e., carriers as producers and passengers as consumers) to set the price for air transportation of emotional support animals as pets. This provision will allow carriers to charge passengers traveling with emotional support animals (dogs and other accepted species on board of an aircraft) with pet transportation fees. This represents a transfer of surplus from passengers to airlines, and does not have implications for the net benefits calculation of the final rule."
[1] https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-12/S...
I think it is reasonable to charge more for larger animals. If your dog takes up a seat then a ticket price is a fair price.
If you have a well behaved animal it is basically just a carry-on.
If some flights aren't profitable that doesn't justify price gouging people with animals that weigh nothing and use up no jet fuel. Increase ticket prices and baggage prices. That actually makes sense.
What was wrong with this alternative (other than being inconvenient for you)?
I'd be damned if I put him in a crate at the bottom of an airplane for 10-hours straight.
When I worked jobs as a janitor, and as a retail worker, I have at various times had clean up the shit, piss vomit, and any number of other bodily expulsions produced by 'emotional support' animals, invariably left untouched and without comment by their owners, or argued with people whose pets growl and bark at everyone if they aren't muzzled. I can't imagine being a flight attendant trying to manage that with a potentially belligerent owner for 10 hours on a plane.
No matter how well-behaved your animal is next time, if you aren't traveling over the ocean, please just drive, so you aren't putting the burden of your pet's presence of everyone else.
I generally trust people with physical disabilities to "self-medicate". If someone with a wheelchair says that something will help them live like a normal person, I'm inclined to think they're telling the truth.
But an awful lot of mental health issues are ones where the people tend to make terrible choices when it comes to dealing with their mental health (not every disease, but an awful lot these days). A lot of these disabilities are sustained and enabled by poor coping strategies (e.g. avoiding things they don't like, acting in destructive ways, expecting and getting special treatment, etc).
What about the cases where allowing people to use their mental health as an excuse is making their mental health worse?
Much as we imagine we know what's best for them, ultimately they have a right to their free choice.
Our current healthcare system is a disgrace of paternalism and bureaucracy, amounting to a constructive denial of care. If anything many more drugs need to be made available directly over the counter - a consultation with the pharmacist should be enough.
I've arrived at these conclusions even with most of the costs being covered by Medicare (family member), good relationships with providers, intelligence/bandwidth to understand what they do, and now free telehealth visits. I can't even imagine the financial-bureaucratic world of pain for people on private "insurance" (or even worse, without) trying to get care for themselves while the system just milks them.
Actual service animals do still belong, because they provide an actual service, are extremely well-trained, and are worth the allergen/phobia tradeoff because folks who need them literally need them.
The amount of entitlement that pet owners have to impose the downsides of their pets on others boggles my mind sometimes.
If your opinion includes that proviso then then I can’t see how’s unpopular! It is quite reasonable overall.
Another interesting thing is that I have a friend who builds apartments in a college town for students. The apartments for years had a strict no pet policy, however people started claiming they were emotional support animals and that the apartment had to let them keep them. So now the apartments just charge you a several hundred dollar fee each semester. If you can't beat em, join em.
Sometimes someone's life comes unraveled because their disability has never been properly identified and accommodated. Being able to say "I need this" without having to jump through hoops to prove it can help such people make their lives work better.
Most studies suggest that something like one in five people has a disability. One study that asked about user needs and challenges in using stuff intentionally avoided using stigmatizing words like "disabled" or "handicapped" and more like three fifths of respondents said they had some degree of trouble doing various things and more accessible design would benefit them.
People who are only moderately disabled often try like hell to avoid getting labeled as disabled because it is stigmatizing and people start treating you like you are stupid and worthless rather than like you just need special accommodation in some areas to make your life work. Those who qualify for an official label of "disabled" are equally hostile to seeing only moderately disabled people being granted the label that grants special status and special accommodation.
The reality is that disability occurs along a continuum. It isn't an on/off switch where if you fall on this side of the line you are "normal, healthy and able-bodied" and if you fall on that side of the line you are "disabled." We try to categorize it like it works that way but it doesn't really work that way.
> "Each time an employee has an encounter with a fake service dog (and yes, they know when you're lying), this brings us tangibly closer to the implementation of laws, regulations, and policies that make it harder for me to live my life without being treated as a second-class citizen."
As a video: https://www.kronon.tv/videos/people-behaving-badly-2013-farm...
I have had a college class on Homelessness and Public Policy. I homeschooled my two gifted-learning disabled sons for years, which means I effectively ran a two student school under the laws of California for years. I also spent some years homeless in part due to my own disability.
Before I was diagnosed with a serious disability in my thirties, I was routinely dismissed by people around me as merely "lazy" (while being sick all the time and one of the top students of my graduating high school class).
Lots of people who claim their animal is a "service animal" are people whose lives are in the toilet, the system doesn't work for them and they have serious issues. Inability to prove need is not actually evidence of lying.
I have a dog phobia and don't like being around them. I am all for finding some means to make sure people keep their animals under control in public. I have had lots of negative experiences with assholes who will not control their dog and who feel I am obligated to meet their dog's emotional needs and all this kind of crappy thing.
Plenty of people being dismissed as "merely abusing the system" have a real need and "abusing the system" is their only means to try to meet it in a world that is routinely hostile to their needs.
It's really complicated. Trying to sort out a better policy is not simple at all.
Anything you or I write here is effectively the same thing. ;) Equal valuation. This blog does cite the ADA and IAADP though.
You seem focused on the bureaucratic hoops and seem to think I want them enforced more strictly? I haven't mentioned that. Please evaluate only the words I use. You seem to be making a point about specifics I haven't raised.
The people acting unethically/immorally and abusing the system know who they are when they do it. It's why they are so defensive. Selfish people ruining good things, once again.
It's really not as simple as "you can tell who is abusing the system at first glance." That's not how that works. I know many people like to think the world is nice and straight forward like that, but it usually isn't.
The thing you quoted did say that, which is what I'm responding to:
> "Each time an employee has an encounter with a fake service dog (and yes, they know when you're lying),
Have a great day.
The thing that bothered me more than anything about this is that you aren't allowed to ask for any type of verification, so people can just walk in with them anywhere. Never made sense to me.
At least to park in a handicap space you need a hang tag or a special license plate. Why not something simple like a special collar tag or card in your wallet?
Service animals have to be licensed, trained to perform a task or duty, and be easily identifiable. Misrepresenting an untrained and unlicensed animal as a service animal is fraud and illegal.
I do think it would be better off for everyone if there was a license though. I've known people with legitimate service dogs who have had that opinion even. They wish they had a document to prove their legitimacy, as they are constantly asked for a document that doesn't exist.
The correct solution is for businesses to grow a backbone and do that for all animals all the time until people gaming the system with fake ESAs give up.
In the US this is not true by the ADA as licensing is a pretty prohibitive cost for many people with disabilities.
I personally don't see the argument that a separate license is needed or helpful. It's an extra cost and step that's entirely unnecessary. If you want or need a service animal you obviously have to have some way to train it and care for it, but a license is extra. Also if it is ever lost or anything you could be turned away from any public place until it's resolved. I just see it causing more issues for people than it tends to solve.
Service dogs(or rarely horses) can generally go anywhere the owner can go including areas pets are prohibited. There is no formal verification, but the owner of the property or their employee can ask if this is a service dog that is required because of a disability, and what tasks it is trained to perform. If it is a cat or other animal, or not trained to perform a task, just to provide support it is not a service dog and they can be refused entry and trespassed.
Registration of service dogs would disenfranchise the disabled. About twice as many don't have photo ID as the general public, many do not own a car or have access to reliable transportation, even relatively small costs can be prohibitive
I expect not waving this is what the rules change actually is, because I don't think the DoT can just decide the ACAA is not a thing.
For a service animal, the airline can only require
> identification cards, other written documentation, presence of harnesses, tags, or the credible verbal assurances of a qualified individual with a disability using the animal.
Although it should be noted that only 23 states prohibit misrepresentation of a service animal, the main difference being that service animals are rather obviously limited as they can only be dogs or miniature horses (an other thing which makes me doubt the complete veracity of the article).
Landlords can't charge a pet or animal fee for emotional support animals.
Yes, this is done to avoid the risk of running afoul the ADA and ACAA. Sadly this has gotten more and more abused in recent years.
The key difference between an "emotional support animal" and a legitimate service animal is that service animals have training that directly assists with the person's disability. Easy examples are seeing-eye dogs, dogs that are trained to smell/detect low blood sugar in diabetics, and dogs that are trained to protect their owner if they have a seizure or similar.
Emotional support animals are just...emotional support and aren't trained to really do anything.
It seems like businesses were just too scared to go to battle over people bringing their pets places for fear of being accused of violating the ADA.
To be clear, I think emotional support animals are ridiculous, but the "no registration/license" piece is a very critical part of the ADA. Finally, businesses are allowed to ask what tasks a service animal has been trained to do as verification and that allowance doesn't even extend to service animals in training.
I think a solution is for the government to place restrictions on emotional support animal use, eg the same way prescriptions are handled.
https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/culture/emot...
I'm a bit touchy on it because I've seen it become a real issue for people with service animals.
This is an extra burden for having a disability which is specifically what the ADA tries to prevent. It allows anyone to train effectively any animal to perform any task that helps them with any disability they (or someone else) may have. It's ultimately these tasks and abilities that make an animal a service animal, not a registration or tag that needs to be kept up to date and costs money.
To be clear I'm talking about any registration that certifies an animal is a service animal, to my knowledge all service animals still have to have all other forms of legal registrations and tags.
It's really about the spirit of the ADA which tries to make sure that there are as few barriers as possible for people with disabilities in society. Someone else made a comment that describes how low the rates are for people with disabilities to have normal forms of ID for themselves, let alone their animals. For someone with a disability even the smallest of barriers can sometimes be insurmountable.
For example, California landolords must allow ESAs and can not require pet deposits for them
https://usserviceanimals.org/blog/emotional-support-animal-l...
ESA are an accepted therapeutic aid for mental issues. In fact airlines require medical evidence under 14 C.F.R. § 382.117(e).
I also mentioned in another comment below that my general interaction with ESAs is people using it as a loophole to take their pets places and causing issues for people with service animals. You're right that there are certainly good cases for it and I'm sure plenty of responsible people with ESAs that aren't part of that group.
Yes. As you say those are service animals, meaning they are trained to actively help e.g. a service animal could be trained to detect acute distress and actively insert themselves into the situation. An ESA is just support.
> I also mentioned in another comment below that my general interaction with ESAs is people using it as a loophole to take their pets places and causing issues for people with service animals.
I completely agree that this is a huge issue. Although people will also misrepresent service animals as most states have no sanctions about that (it's rarer because there are usually expectations about service animals, and the available "range" is extremely limited e.g. a cat or a cockatoo can not be a service animal).
A family friend owned and managed an apartment complex and had issues with tenants buying certificates online for their pit bull and saying it was an "emotional support animal." The dog wasn't, they just wanted to get around local breed restrictions.
Apparently that is quite common.
Now the new thing is to get out of paying exorbitantly high ($500) pet fees by claiming the pet as a support animal. Competent building managers will see this coming and note that only service dogs are exempt.
In both cases -- pet or children -- damages should be extracted from a security deposit. j
On the other hand landlords compete for tenants. So they may want to allow pets but impose a surcharge for the potential damage.
You'd have the same issues with tenants that were excessively noisy, or held parties and spilled alcohol in the hallways, or scratched doors/walls/floors from moving bikes, furniture, etc. So it seems inconsistent to apply the nonrefundable fee only to the case of pets.
https://www.wndu.com/content/news/Dowagiac-house-fire-sparke...
https://www.myarklamiss.com/louisiana-news/child-playing-wit...
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/23/child-linked-...
https://www.fox13now.com/2015/07/25/fire-crews-respond-to-2-...
https://www.ajc.com/news/local/kids-playing-with-lighters-ca...
Pets don’t make the news when they ruin dwelling places, as it is relatively common compared to that.
The reality is that animals are rougher on homes than humans are. Even things like the backyard will have more wear and tear on it with a pet than with humans and all of this has to be dealt with during turn over.
A perfect example of this is paint. During a normal turnover we would do a "tier 3" paint job. Which is to hire someone to come in with a spray gun and spray the walls white. They don't target baseboards or ceilings, but the overspray will generally cover some of it (ever notice how apartments and rentals generally have white walls, white baseboards, and white ceilings?). It is a cheap and lazy paint job that we have negotiated flat rates for $300-$400 per home. This happens no matter what.
But on a home with a pet occupant, it is nearly guaranteed that you would need to perform at least a tier 2 paint job which is generally coupled with a carpet replacement. The carpets are torn up (or peeled back if they are recoverable), the painters come in and spray the walls, baseboards, with overspray on the underlayment (under the carpet) and the ceiling edges. This usually runs us $800 - $900. So pet rent usually goes to that.
After a tier 2 paint job, a carpet contractor usually comes and re-stretches the carpet and does a carpet shampoo. But on a home with a pet occupant this has to be replaced since hair and dirt that most people don't notice, can cause allergies for the next tenant. So with a pet occupant our turnover cost goes from a standard $200 for re-stretching, as much as $1,200 for fresh carpet. Pet fees go to that.
A final turnover item is the backyard. Normally a lawn care company comes to do a standard touch up on the yard. This includes mowing, trimming, leaf blowing, etc, just to make the home presentable for walk-through. But with a pet, the grass is usually thinner after the pet use, and needs some re-seeding. Sometimes it is destroyed with holes or previous renter patches. Fences often need fixing (which gets really expensive, even if it is just a few boards) and so on. A standard lawn turnover usually costs $50. But with a pet it usually is $100+ and I have seen extreme cases where it is in the thousands.
This all comes from someone who owns a big dog that I love. My dog is well behaved. He never has accidents in the house and for the most part doesn't cause noticeable damage. But there are minor things that you just don't notice that I have only seen now that I have experienced it through property management.
Pets really do cause more wear and tear on homes than human-only occupied homes. That is why there are pet fees. They know that more is going to be done when you move out and those fees contribute to limiting that.
Now many renters have learned that if they claim that a pet is an emotional support animal, that they can avoid pet rent. But the reality is that if you claim a pet as an emotional support animal, that you can basically kiss your deposit goodbye. The company that I worked for was pretty good about giving back deposits. There was a $400 non-refundable deposit that we collected upon move in that you never got back. THis covers standard turnover stuff like tier 3 painting and carpet re-stretching. So if you leave the house in good condition, then we can give you everything other than that $400 back, and usually did. If you have a pet, then the extra rent from pet rent is calculated to cover the upgrades to tier 2 paint jobs and carpet replacement jobs. So again, you get your deposit back unless something is beyond normal wear.
But if you avoid pet rent with the emotional support animal, then that is fine. They won't charge you pet rent, but you will certaintly not get any of your deposit back. The owner or property manager still has to do the carpet replacement, yard fixes, and extra painting regardless of whether you pay pet rent or not. So emotional support animals generally lose their deposits to cover these costs, while people with pet rent usually get their deposits back.
Hotels discount rooms all the time for guests they know have a very low likelihood of causing damage. The probability of a person with a pet causing damage must be sufficiently high that it makes sense to charge extra. There's plenty of competing landlords and hotel businesses, and if there was economic opportunity in doing it the way you said, it would be done.
It's not just pets though. Hotels will charge more for wedding parties, who are far likelier to cause noise complaints, damage etc, than a crew of workers who will be sleeping, going to work, rinse repeat.
Oh, I realize why landlords prefer it. I just don't think it holds up under scrutiny. If you're my tenant and I charge you $100/month for dog rent on your new puppy, who causes $0 damage and lives for 14 years, I've extracted $16,800 from you, $0 of which will go toward rehabbing the apartment of dog damages when you leave.
Additionally, a landlord will want to work on the space more often than once every 14 years. A security deposit does not cover this.
Additionally a tenant renting for 14 years is making a suboptimal financial decision regardless of pet ownership. Much more than $15k would be unnecessarily spent, for many people. A tenant who wants to get the better end financially, especially a pet owner, will buy or at least keep the landlord honest about market costs of the rental.
Then again, I had a therapist who vouched for this and actually do have mental health problems that my Shepherd without a doubt helps me with.
No way in hell I am putting the dogs in the cargo hold. The passengers around us and flight attendents were absolutely enamored with how well they behaved.
While I tend to agree that this has been abused - it frustrates me that obnoxious children get a pass.
Setting aside the absurd cases, like emotional support peacocks, I think a lot of the emotional support animal shenanigans are simply people not wanting to cargo their pet and not having the time to drive them across the country.
But in general, yes, I'd be willing to pay for their own seat or row, just like when traveling with him by train we need to buy a special dog ticket.
Looks like they're out of business now after a quick Google, but maybe it'll give you some hints where to look for clues - there has to be more of these companies out there doing this kind of thing, as I was led to believe was popular/common (?) for pro sports players to want their pet with them at training camps & such (hearsay by me). As mentioned, it was not cheap but I was also paying for a kennel at the destination for a few days until I could get there myself.
I'm also surprised the players didn't just get to bring the pets on the charter plane they travel around the country on, if only for that initial move.
Item #: Transport Fee (small animal)
Unit price: $495.00
Description: Total of 1734 Miles (fuel surcharge)
Unit price: $246.80
That’s what we did when we flew to Germany with our dog last year. Too many stories about pets dying in cargo. Our small dog just sat on my lap the whole time and a lot of people and children stopped by to pet the dog and give treats. I think it made the flight better for all. But we knew that she wouldn’t make trouble and wouldn’t have taken her if we had had the slightest doubt. I guess some other pet owners go on board with problematic animals.
No pet owner thinks their pet is problematic...
https://www.cunard.com/en-us/inspiration/life-on-board/pets-...
Planes are enclosed-air spaces, and the allergens from your dog make anyone with allergies miserable for the entire duration of the flight. Every single time we end up on a plane with a dog (even the "hypoallergenic" ones), my wife ends up sick. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of people with severe phobias of dogs, and that the animals themselves tend to be extremely uncomfortable on flights. That last factor has actually led to a number of innocent people sitting next to folks with dogs getting bit, etc on planes.
Actual service animals do still belong, because they provide an actual service, are extremely well-trained, and are worth the allergen/phobia tradeoff because folks who need them literally need them.
And to your point about pet sitters or boarding. My family did not choose to get another pet at some point while I was growing up because the cost of boarding while traveling was just too much.
I wish pet culture would be dialed back a few notches on the dial.
And for the situation where you’ll be away for a long time? It’s cheaper to take a pet aboard a plane than to board for a few weeks. But there should be better options than either (1) the cargo bay or (2) in the cabin with everyone else.
> Actual service animals do still belong, because they provide an actual service, are extremely well-trained, and are worth the allergen/phobia tradeoff because folks who need them literally need them.
Emotional support animals absolutely are a thing. The problem is everyone abuses the idea. But for someone with depression, just having your dog or cat next to you can keep you sane better than your medicine can. I know, because that someone is me. Do I take my pet everyone? No, but they absolutely do help when needed.
Again, if that's your life, don't own pets. We had a dog, and having to deal with her when we would go on vacations or even just needing to stay late at work knowing she had been inside and would need to go out was a constant hassle. She was a sweet dog and loved but I'm not ever having another one.
As far as traveling on a plane, I don't see any other practical options, I could imagine something like a kennel area in the passenger compartment but cannot imagine any airline actually providing that unless they could consistently fill it for fees that make up for the loss of the passenger seats, which seems unlikely.
Pets are a choice.
I'm being hyperbolic, but still the "pets (or kids) are a choice" argument falls apart after a moment's scrutiny.
(Note: putting kids and pets in the same category seems a bit bold.)
I'll also mention that it's the contact side of it too. If I touch anyone's dog, I have to wash my hands, because one absentminded rub of my face is all it takes to go full allergy misery. Sitting on any furniture that a dog has been on for a length of time (say, your couch)? Also going to cause me problems.
Pets shed, airplanes have carpeted floors and airplanes aren't exactly deep cleaned between flights, at least in non-COVID times.
If your dog was in that seat or on the floor of that row on the last flight, and I'm in it on this flight, I'm likely going to be both personally miserable and making everyone else around me miserable for my entire flight.
Just to reinforce the truthfullness of this. Most planes only get cursory garbage removal between flights. Thats it! They are only cleaned every 24 - 48 hours. But a plane might make 4-12 flights between cleanings, and even these cleanings aren't serious. They do a vacuum and spray sanitizer on main surfaces, but that's it.
In fact one of the reasons that diseases spread so much on planes is not because of people on your flight or the re-circulated air as most people assume. But often disease spreads from people that sat where you are sitting on a flight 1-3 flights ago.
And of course allergenic have similar characteristics to viruses and bacteria. So they follow the same pattern.
Have you ever been on a flight where someone with peanut allergies is on the plane? The flight attendants announce that someone on the plane is allergic, so peanuts will not be served on the plane as a matter of safety.
The same courtesy should exist for people with allergies to pets. Many of them have to spend the whole flight concerned that they might have a reaction because they are forced to share the same re-circulated air as a pet that is potentially dangerous to them.
The DOT ruling cites an industry statistic that 784k pets and 751k ESAs were transported in 2017 [1]. I can certainly believe that it's grown more lopsided since then, but it still seems that a significant number of flights would have animals on them after this rule takes effect.
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-12/S...
Ridiculous right? The way I understand the argument so far is:
Pets should be allowed on planes and everyone else must deal with that.
Pets should not be allowed so pet owners must deal with that.
Neither option sounds reasonable to me.
Really it looks to me like there is a market for safe and reliable pet air transport. Why have carriers not addressed this?
As long as all flights are forced to accept service animals without verification for free, it's not a viable business to have flights exclusively for pets.
In fact, some animals are not allowed to be kept as pets at all. I'm fine with extending that to all types of animals. Dogs are out there spreading covid right now but I can't go to the gym. That makes so much sense.
I don't understand the pet owners' sense of entitlement.
Where is this data? [1] says "Currently, there is no evidence that animals play a significant role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people"
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/...
> I don't understand the pet owners' sense of entitlement.
I don't know if this is directed at me? I don't have a pet. I'm just advocating for pet owners here.
And if you can't understand how shortsighted your view of "anything that inconveniences me is bad" then nothing I can write will change your mind.
I didn't say these words, nor imply them. I find it befuddling how you act as if non-owners of pets are the selfish ones. Let's replace "dogs" with "cigarettes". After all, smokers like nicotine as much or more than dog owners like dogs. Am I also selfish if I don't wish to endure sitting next to a smoker on a flight?
Lots of things inconvenience me but are inescapable or benefit society at large. Dogs are neither of these things, and the burden of owning them should not be externalized to those who derive no benefit from them.
I looked into this a while back and articles were making the mortality seem more likely than it was.
https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm
>When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.
How is that even supposed to work? “Hey, can you have a seizure so we can see your dog do its job?”
Airlines are allowed to require specific documentation.
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
>Airlines can request specific documentation and/or 48-hours advance notice for emotional support animals and psychiatric service animals.
Also, I assume that Dept of Transportation website is now out of date with the newest rule changes requiring only service dogs.
In case you're wondering; no, she didn't write the release. The people scamming the system (drug seekers, etc...) realized pretty quickly not to go to her because she won't give them what they want.
It ain't over until it has been to court. The hurdle for the new agency rule is to demonstrate that this is not a violation of civil rights under the American's with Disabilities Act. For the past thirty years (almost) that's tended to be a high bar. How high? Well emotional support animals were flying because the airline industry didn't want to test it in court.
The agency rule gives the airlines additional cover. But an agency rule doesn't usually trump federal statute and the ADA doesn't explicitly delegate interpretation to ordinary federal agencies. Just the DoJ and the DoJ can be challenged in the Federal courts.
It might be over, but I wouldn't go all in betting on it. YMMV.
The FAA is acting under the assumption that this act gives them the ability to regulate differently than the ADA. However many of the changes made in this ruling are actually making the regulations more aligned with DOJ's ADA regulations.
So if a court were to rule that the FAA needs to follow the ADA rules completely the main change would be eliminating the new optional (airlines choice) form requirement for service animals.
Emotional support animals have zero protection under the ADA. They are only recognized under the Fair Housing Act (and is mostly an artifact of caselaw there) and under the FAA regulations being revised here.
Unless/until courts rule that emotional support animals must be allowed as reasonable accomidations in public places under the ADA (rather than just under the Fair Housing Act) I expect this exclusion of ESAs will be allowed to stand.
For the DMV, you have a checklist and you walk up with everything on the checklist and the robot sends you off if you meet the checklist.
For stores, you have full facial-recognition and single-entry gateways. Violation is a full ban from the store. Digital signed payment only, no cash.
I mean, I get why it is, but for someone normative, not having to deal with people who (often for no fault of their own) have harder lives would be just so much better.
The USPS does this already and I can't see that it's anything but good.
If this trend continues (of loose animals in cabin) I bet we'll start having serious problems between pets and people inside an enclosed metal tube. Flying experience is already bad enough...
The support animal thing of "I just need this animal near me" without any regards to the temperament of the animal itself never made sense to me.
TBF miniature horses can genuinely be not just ESA but service animals. They're the only legal alternative to dogs for service animals.
Lots (multiple for most big industries)
> What does it take to form one?
"Hello, competitors in my industry. We think we can build a larger moat by lobbying for regulation that will make it harder for other competitors. Would any of you like to join us in having less competition?"
> What kind of influence do they carry?
C.F. Cartels
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying
The even have their own trade association:
https://www.taforum.org/creating-a-new-trade-association/
Setting one up is easy; you just incorporate. Influence ranges from "zero" to "able to get meetings with Congresspeople on important committees". The meetings are the important part. You can't actually bribe your way to power, but you get to tell them what you want and how that benefits their constituents.
That's easy for an airline, which employs a lot of people and impacts travel for everybody. They use a group to speak with one voice and (perhaps more importantly) know who to talk to (which isn't just elected representatives but also the decision making people at in the executive branch).
And the airlines would do nothing because they couldn't be seen as the bad guy (or it's just unfashionable to have rules that need to be respected these days).
How many other people should be inconvenienced by my issues?
It's reasonable for a blind person to take their guide dog on a plane. It's reasonable for someone with mental illness to take their well trained support animal on the plane.
It's unreasonable for someone who's struggling a bit to take their pet cow on a plane.
The whole thing is a big grey area. The rules should be explicit.
The court system. I say something is reasonable, you do not and don't allow me on a flight so I take you to court over it and the court decides.
It might be a common sense thing to say that no one would ever want or have need to use a horse as a service animal, but there are miniature horses that are service animals.
Also IIRC miniature horses being service animals is explicitly part of the law, so I'm not sure why you're using that as an example.
How would that even work, too? If a random person decides that somebody's disability doesn't exist, do they then just barge in even more than usual. "I decided that your coeliac disease didn't exist, so I used wheat as a thickener. Your fault for not explaining it better."
A. Your examples are of animals disallowed - not allowed.
B. Those animals are obviously much more feasible, physically.
C. Regardless of how feasible they are, I simply gave a reasonable answer to the question - I didn't imply that all human systems have that same answer.
You should explain your thoughts, instead of only posting links with no context.
So no, the airlines don't have to accept someone's service animal that isn't a dog.
https://mashable.com/2016/01/11/turkey-therapy-pet-airplane/
How would they verify claims? Ask for a prescription or a note from a doctor or psychiatrist?
EDIT: I'm wrong, only service dogs are allowed, so they need to be trained to do a specific task to help a person with a disability.
But also, I'm pretty sure verication was already technically required. From AA's website, these forms are required:
- Medical / Mental Health Professional Form
- Veterinary Health Form, or vaccination record with current rabies vaccination information
- Confirmation of Animal Behavior Form
Yes?
Why? Are you suggesting some form of subsidy? Transporting live animals is expensive, and pet ownership (let alone flying with them) is not a human right. If the market does not land on a safe and affordable option, then so be it, solely the pet owner should bare that cost.
Right now the problem for pet owners (of which I am one) is that there are no acceptable options, even at a significantly increased cost. Putting a pet in the luggage compartment is not acceptable, and airlines basically don't give you any other option unless your pet is small enough to fit in its carrier under your seat, which very few pets are. Airlines have options to support people traveling with infants and small children; similar options for people traveling with pets, even if they cost more, would be helpful.
Well, whats your suggestion then? If there was a better option, it feels like the airlines would have taken advantage of that opportunity. My guess is that the alternatives are too logistically/operationally expensive, and the pet owners aren't willing to bear that cost.
> Airlines have options to support people traveling with infants and small children
I see a lot of this sentiment in the comments, comparing infants and pets. One is essential to the continuation of our species. The other is a comfort, choice and privilege. It makes sense that our willingness to accept and subsidize is completely different between the two. You don't get a dependent tax deduction either, just because you have a dog.
A poster upthread said he would be quite willing to purchase a second seat for his pet if the airline would let him. So would I.
> I see a lot of this sentiment in the comments, comparing infants and pets. One is essential to the continuation of our species. The other is a comfort, choice and privilege.
Air travel is also a comfort, choice, and privilege. Suggesting that airlines could, for example, sell people a seat for their pet is not equating infants or children and pets. It's a business suggestion, that's all.
Not at all lol. What is the option though currently, renting a private jet?
edit: To think of it differently, the airlines have chosen, and that choice of theirs resulted in deaths of pets, repeatedly. They want to let pet owners pay for tickets but not give them the safety of traveling without killing their pet.
If they're going to allow pet travel it should have safety regulations just like people - that don't result in pets being left on a 130deg tarmac for literal hours, and dying.
The "free market" should not get to decide things that kill people, pets, etc.
It would have required a lot of resources to verify every individual claim and that would have raised prices for everyone. The burden of proof has been shifted to where it should always have been: on the person wanting to bring the animal.
The importance of the new rule is twofold: first, it lets the airlines know that it does not violate the ADA to restrict emotional support animals, and second, it permits airlines to require verification that an animal is actually required for support reasons, emotional or otherwise.
"Emotional support animals, comfort animals, and therapy dogs are not service animals under Title II and Title III of the ADA. [...] It does not matter if a person has a note from a doctor that states that the person has a disability and needs to have the animal for emotional support. A doctor’s letter does not turn an animal into a service animal."
This post is about emotional support animals, not service animals. Your animal, who's helping you feel better despite your phobia, is not a service animal. This is exactly because people keep blurring the line between these 2 different situations that airlines, restaurants and other businesses have to implement "a-hole policies".
Not to mention the comments that say something to the effect of "well even if it did help a few people, it drove up prices for everyone". The implication being that disabled people only deserve accommodations (and therefore the right to participate in society) when they are convenient for everyone/companies.
It's very telling that these are the responses of the community when it comes to disabled people rather than the responses we see on other threads about how some framework or Salas is dropping support for some beloved feature, i.e. responses such as "why can't we try X? Won't Y work?"
I'm physically ill reading the comments here.
The better question, I believe, is how often flights were disrupted by poorly trained animals. It certainly happened; how much? Then we can at least attempt to compare the benefits against the actual costs.
The impression I get is that a lot of people don't care about the costs. They simply care that there was a rule in place that people circumvented, and they resent that a lot.
If I was encountering a service animal every once in a while from a disabled person, it might be okay. But it feels like everyone other person has one, and I have no idea what the owner or trainer is like and that raises the risk profile quite a bit.
There's a very high likelihood that the same people that ignore leash laws are on flights with an animal in close quarters to me.
The problem is that there were no standards around this policy and it was abused without any clear indication that it helped anyone. There is also little clinical evidence that ESAs ameliorate patient symptoms, and much less that they help around travel.
Policies around ESAs, like anything, require effort to implement and support, and therefore need good evidential support ... instead of an emotional appeal.