Hacker News Reader

Comment by mwfunk | Hacker News Reader

I'm all in favor of people who need them having emotional support animals, but for as long as this has been a thing I have been totally shocked at how many people I personally know (who I thought were better people than this) completely abusing it to bring their pets with them everywhere (planes or anywhere else where you don't normally take pets). And joking about abusing the system, and joking about how awesome it is that they can just pretend to have this need, et voila now they can take their pet everywhere.

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.

View on HN

I have a pretty unpopular take on this, being married to someone with severe pet allergies. That take is, dogs (and cats) have no place on an airplane, and responsible adults shouldn't get pets that they can't find sitters for or board while they are away. 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.

The amount of entitlement that pet owners have to impose the downsides of their pets on others boggles my mind sometimes.

> 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.

If your opinion includes that proviso then then I can’t see how’s unpopular! It is quite reasonable overall.

Yes, as a blind person I support restrictions on emotional support animals, which is a concept that has been abused more often than it is used. I'm sympathetic to people who want to bring their animals with them, but pretending that your animal is needed to support you emotionally isn't the answer. If you want to create a movement to allow animals at every venue, then start it and society can have that debate. But fibs about medical necessity, and sending away to get a certificate from a random website, isn't the answer.

Worked for pot.

it worked in the sense that we now have "wink-wink nudge-nudge" recreational weed in states where it would not be politically feasible to have it explicitly legalized. it's still an abuse of the system. MMJ practices in medical-only states are basically the weed equivalent of pill mills. jury's still out on whether this will have any lasting implications, but I do wonder if this doesn't detract from the legitimacy of weed as a bona-fide medicine.

As someone who is attempting to employ weed for its bona-fide medicinal properties while having little personal interest in it, gatekeeping it behind the backwards medical industry would be extremely counterproductive. Doubly so for for a drug that the establishment doesn't have much experience with, and therefore won't necessarily recommend.

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.

There's also the grey area of self-medication.

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?

> 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.

I don't think criminalizing "poor coping strategies" is likely to be an effective intervention, if the health and well-being of the people engaging in them is your concern.

Keep in mind that an Emotional Support Animal <> Service Animal. It appears they will still allow service animals, but not the "I just need my Great Dane by me on the flight damnit!!" emotional support animals.

It sounds like dogs only, so you can probably still take your Great Dane.

Has to be trained by a licensed service animal program and fit under the seat.

Miniature horses can be service animals, and I’ve never seen one fitting under a seat. You have to fit the seat over the horse instead.

They should just make the back three rows specific for people with dogs. That would at least force people to decide how much they want to bring the dog with them.

Is there a limit to the number of service animals that can be on board a plane at any given time? It seems like the airlines will happily allow an unlimited # of passengers to pay $200 to fly with their pet under the seat in front of them.

I would be shocked if the abuse wasnt >50%

Edit: Removed comment, sparked unconstructive discussion.

> A lot of people are very attached to their pets, there's nothing wrong with that. Particularly single people living alone without kids (I fall in that bucket).

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.

> 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.

Then you should have absorbed the inconvenience of driving cross-country, not abusing a system meant to help people that need it.

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.

> If you want to treat them humanely (as you would other humans), open your front door and let them walk out to freedom.

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.

>open your front door and let them walk out to freedom.

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.

That system is bare minimum required by law.

Just because "humane" is related to "human", it doesn't mean it applies only to humans. Also it's silly to allow cats on planes while prohibiting dogs.

Delta allows pets in the cabin. Was your dog too big or something?

Probably. Isn't that only pets small enough to fit under the seat?

Yes I believe the carrier has to go under the seat. It is basically a piece of luggage.

Let's say my way of self-medicating for anxiety during flights is to get wasted. Does this now entitle me to be a drunk asshole on the flight?

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.

It is abusive for airlines to charge $250 per roundtrip for a ~10 lb carryon that fits under your seat.

They are operating a scam. This was the only way around it.

I love all the downvotes with no explanation about how this is a defensible practice in any way.

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.

I didn't downvote you, but your original comment was extremely generalized which makes it annoying to argue against, because you have to point out all the caveats or else people will cling on to them each subsequent iteration.

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.

It's worth noting that the Department of Transportation final ruling devotes a section to economic impact [1], and estimates a ~$55M increase in fees paid by passengers traveling with ESAs to airlines.

> 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...

Yeah, "market forces". Because they don't all just charge $125 right now per flight and not give a fuck.

All airlines as far as I'm aware do charge around $125 per flight. Distance doesn't matter.

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.

Sounds like you should start an airline that offers and allows pet to fly free or for whatever you think a ~10lb carryon should cost.

> The only alternative was to drive cross-country, or...

What was wrong with this alternative (other than being inconvenient for you)?

I don't have a car.

So at what point do you have so many constraints that you "don't get to do it"? You've mentioned you need your animal, but you can't afford a one-way car rental, or a hotel, and that flying is affordable regardless of what happens to folks with allergies. At what point is there not a workable solution in completing your travel task?

You missed out on a great life experience. My partner and I had an incredible time moving across the country and driving our pets with us.

I drove long distance and it was not much experience. Most difficult is to have discipline to not drive too much.

Are you able to rent one?

I love my dog. He's my best and most sycophantic friend. If I'm going anywhere he might be allowed, he's with me.

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.

This is exactly how I feel about handicapped parking spaces. If I could pay for a spot right next to the door I would but they don't offer that and schlepping myself all the way across the parking lot makes me feel uncomfortable. Or at least sweaty.

I haven't gotten far enough to see how expensive it actually is but there are services that will transport your pet. Seems a lot better than air as they have more room and get checked on regularly.

https://www.petvanlines.com/

I was in the same situation and thus drove with my dog. It wasn't that hard and was pretty fun.

I'm with you on the overall abuse of the system. But given that the alternative is often putting the animal in the cargo hold, it's understandable. It's too bad regulators haven't banned that practice while they're at it.

Yeah if we make it so the best legal and ethical way to move you and your pet is take the train....hell yeah.

> I'm with you on the overall abuse of the system. But given that the alternative is often putting the animal in the cargo hold

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 personally tend to do inconvenient things instead of justifying the least worst expedient option, but it's wrong to pretend that everyone does. From what I've read about stowing your pet, it's basically inviting animal abuse (being left to sit on a hot tarmac, etc).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com