I remember being in an airport and having a woman I was sitting next to openly admit to me that her dog she was bringing on the plane she had "just went online an registered as an emotional support animal so I can take him with me". Clearly implying she did not, in fact, require an ESA.
I just remember being so blown away that she assumed a stranger would be 100% on board with this tactic as to tell me about it unvarnished that I was stunned into silence.
I love dogs, but you're ruining everything for the people who actually need service animals.
An ESA is not a service animal and there is no registry. There are just a bunch of idiots and/or scumbags who register their animal for a piece of paper that they think is a golden ticket for their pets. In a few very limited circumstances an ESA is allowed in places that “just a pet” is not, but AFAIAA this is not enshrined in law, just something some places do that aren’t otherwise legally prohibited from allowing animals and the only place I know for sure requires a note from a mental health professional.
There is also no registry for service animals, but there are companies that train those animals and they can be queried about training and legitimacy.
Next time someone says they have a service animal, ask them what service it performs. If they don’t have a ready response, they’re full of it. And if their animal isn’t well behaved, they’re also full of it.
My dog is a retired service animal. She performed seizure alert and response. She could (and probably still can) save a life. If she was on your flight you’d only know if you happened to see her. And frankly the other passengers would be more of a problem for her than she would be to anyone.
ESAs and liars create a lot of problems for legitimate service animals. I won’t point out any specific posts but there’s an incredible amount of ignorance in these threads and I’d bet it’s all due to negative experiences with people who don’t have service animals.
Service animals save lives. The people who need them really need them. Lying about a service animal is like lying about needing a wheelchair. Complaining about them is like complaining about a wheelchair blocking the aisle.
These animals are no joke. They’re extremely heavily trained. Many animals don’t make it through these programs. Some of them are worth more than your car.
Adding on: training a service animal costs hundreds to thousands of dollars. It's poetically not something you do so you can bring your dog on a flight with you.
Add to that: I'm allergic to dogs. Depending on the dog it may be hardly a problem or maybe a minor inconvenience, but other times it can turn into hours of misery.
And all because of an asshole who's too cheap to cough up 100$ for the proper transportation of his "support" animal.
Just FYI, the "proper transportation" is the exact same thing, you just pay the airline $100 (in Delta's case, $150 per way) for the pleasure. They still go in the cabin with you, you still have all the same issues, they just want to skim some extra cash out of you.
It wouldn't be nearly as irritating that they charge for it if there were something they were actually providing (like a more pet-friendly place to ride), but they don't.
> Just FYI, the "proper transportation" is the exact same thing
It's not. Dogs have to travel in their kennel under the seat, which is significantly more stressful for small dogs than on your lap, speaking as someone who travels with an actual ESA
> If they don’t have a ready response, they’re full of it.
You're missing the point of it being an emotional support animal-- the go-to response is usually something related to mental health that cannot be validated or disproven by the questioner.
No, I’m not. An ESA is not a service animal and does not perform a service. If someone specifically claims to have a service animal they can be legally asked what services the animal performs. If someone claims “emotional support” or “mental support” or any other such claim, it is not a service animal. It might be an ESA but those do not have the same legal protections/rights.
Probably being downvoted because it's just anecdote, but I've had at least two friends who shamelessly did the same thing with their dogs. I doubt this is uncommon given how easy the loophole is to exploit.
I can't imagine it's uncommon at all. It runs from people just buying harnesses/vests for their animal that says "Service Animal", to people who have a friend who is a doctor (not even a psychologist or related field) who will write them a doctor's note proclaiming their animal a service animal. I know both of these types of people, and I know they've brought their dogs on planes based on this.
It's disgusting and makes me uncomfortable whenever I'm at an establishment with them that usually doesn't allow pets.
I would imagine in the latter case that the doctor would not be pleased to hear that their friend told you this story, as something like that could be grounds for disciplinary action on their license. Totally unacceptable to sign false documentation and seriously calls into question their professional integrity.
I've never seen any animal in an aircraft cabin, and I fly a fair bit. How does it work even when it is completely legitimate? Do you just ask the animal politely not to go to the toilet for 12 hours or however long? What if they have an accident? How on earth do you clean that up and deal the smell in a cramped space?
Genuine service animals are extremely well behaved. The training is no joke, and a large fraction of the animals fail out. It’s likely that you’ve been on a plane with a service animal and not noticed. Service animals can contentedly sit or lie down silently for hours without attracting attention. They know when they are on the job and they behave accordingly.
As for very long flights, I imagine that a service dog can do its business in a small bag or box. Also, a well trained animal will pee or poop on command before a flight and can go for quite a while without peeing or pooping.
It could make sense to require accredited training programs for service animals. Poorly behaved “service” animals are a problem for those who need real service animals.
In the particular case of guide dogs fir the blind, having the dog poop on command is also what lets the owner know where the poop is, so it can be properly disposed of.
I believe service animal training is already accredited. The issue here is that businesses are in the habit of trusting the "Service Animal" labeling and not checking if it's genuine or someone's ESA.
There are three things you can ask under ADA (which does not allow ESA, and appears to be what you are talking about, FHA and ACAA have different rules):
0. Is this a dog or miniature horse? (only those animals are considered as potential service animals under ADA)
1. Is this a service dog within the definition of the ADA, i.e. has it been trained to perform a specific tasks to mitigate a disability? (cannot ask what the disability is)
2. What specific tasks is it trained to perform? (ex. seizure response, seeing eye, etc.)
However, there is no way for you to "check" if this is true. Service animals need not be trained by any approved company or carry any identification, and you cannot ask about this. The only way out is if someone admits to it not meeting the legal definition or gets caught in a lie while answering these questions.
If, after all that, the animal cannot be reasonably accommodated as it is not being housebroken, being vicious or harmful, damaging property, or making an unreasonable and excessive amount of noise, it can still get shown the door. Likewise, if allowing an animal is inappropriate under any circumstance for safety or regulatory reasons (ex. cleanroom, food service, nuclear exposure, hearing damage potential, etc), you need not allow it. The establishment owner is never responsible for feeding or looking after the dog or procuring one for the person with disabilities. You can expect that service animals be kept on lease unless brief exceptions are critical to job function.
There's no accreditation for service animals. The Americans with Disabilities Act does not require that a service dog be professionally trained or certified, you can even train a dog yourself and (legally) call it a service animal. It's a wild west and some people end up paying thousands of dollars for dogs that aren't even socialized or house trained.
>The legislation appeared to be a victory for service-dog advocates, but the study almost immediately encountered problems. The V.A. initially partnered with vendors whose poorly trained animals introduced unexpected complications. ... “We relied upon the organizations themselves, all of which professed to be very experienced and to be able to produce high-quality dogs, and unfortunately that did not turn out to be true,” Fallon told lawmakers in a 2016 congressional hearing. “We were not familiar enough with the service-dog community when we embarked on the pilot study. There’s no question that we’ve made mistakes
there are some reputable training schools (like guide dogs for the blind and canine companions for independence), but there is no real accreditation. there's maybe organizations like assistance dogs international, that hold member schools to standards, but not much beyond that.
the ada explicitly doesn't allow any kind of request for documentation or certification either. basically you just have to take people at face value when you ask them if the animal is required because of a disability. and lots of people with ESAs are okay being very casual about that.
(and the reason i can figure out why people with ESAs are okay with bending the truth compared to a trained service animal, is because they tend to be the ones that are VERY upset in two situations that are legal: the one where i negotiate different accommodations because i'm very allergic to dog dander, and the one where they get upset that a misbehaving ESA is being asked to leave the premises. having been around dozens of trained service animals - i've never seen one misbehave the way ESAs can, and everyone is happy with my suggestions due to my allergy since i go above and beyond, rather than making things more difficult.)
I looked into this last year and found no federally recognized accreditation of service animals. The ADA prohibits discrimination against them, which in turn creates a potential legal liability for businesses who deny them, whatever them is...
I used to fly with my dog occasionally, and I followed all the rules:
1) Required to bring a recent veterinary certificate of health
2) Pay $75-125 to bring the animal on.
3) Demonstrate the animal weighs less then 20 lbs.
4) Demonstrate the animal can fit in a soft sided crate that fits underneath an aircraft seat
5) give up having a personal item
6) keep the animal crated underneath the seat in front of you.
My dog never did his business on a flight (we never flew more than 6h and he was used to staying home way longer then that), but I had baggies ready to go.
How does it work even when it is completely legitimate
I've done it with cats. They were required by the airline to have a health certificate from a vet stating that they were healthy enough to fly, to be kept in their container at all times, and I had to pay a fee. I think it was $200 last time.
The vet also supplies tranquilizers to give the animal just before the flight. That keeps it calm and helps prevent it from needing to use the litter box.
Coast-to-coast isn't a problem. 12 hours? Animals shouldn't fly intercontinental. There's simply no reason for it.
At one time you could mail a cat. I mailed one from Charleston to New York using Delta's package service. The fee was less because it went into the cargo hold, but it still needed documentation from the vet. I don't know if that's still allowed.
I'd never put my dog in a cargo hold, hence he will probably never fly. What if airlines offered flights for dog owners only, or people who would tolerate dogs? I'd gladly pay 2x to 3x to fly with my dog.
i was once delayed because a dog on the arriving plane made such a mess that they needed to clean three rows of seats. they had to bring in a new plane for us because that one required specialized cleaning. “there was shit everywhere” kind of thing.
i can’t look at dogs on plane the same way after that. must have been terrifying for the dog, and disgusting for the people.
ps - i’ve seen a toddler with poop riding up his back on a plane, too. mom had her hands full with three kids! ive been an obsessed loving dog owner myself, but i don’t like how people try to compare dogs to babies and toddlers. i think it’s demeaning to the “small person”.
I'm reminded of a recent flight I took where I was in the last seat of first class (yay upgrade!) and, right behind me, in the bulkhead economy seat, there was a not-small, long-haired dog (40-50 lbs maybe?) just lying on the floor in front of the owner's seat, not restrained in any way.
It wasn't an excessively long flight (~5 hours), but still, not sure how they could ensure the dog wouldn't need to go to the bathroom in that time.
I'm mildly allergic... it was not a pleasant flight for me at all.
I've always been confused by this -- if you're allergic to dogs, and the flight is required to have a dog on it for whatever reason, is the airline then liable for any and all medical bills related to an allergic reaction after the flight? Are you not entitled to reasonable accommodation as well?
I'm not sure... I guess maybe it depends on how severe the allergy is and how much of an issue you make of it. For me it's not life-threatening; it just makes me uncomfortable: a little nasal congestion, and perhaps my eyes feel a little itchy. I didn't say anything on that particular flight, but perhaps if I had, they could have accommodated me somehow.
I'm shocked you've never seen one. I fly pretty rarely, generally just 2 or 3 US domestic flights per year, and while I don't actually keep count, I'm relatively certain I see a small dog in a little cube-shaped bag on nearly every flight.
Anecdotal but I had 2 round trip flights between SFO and Logan (Thanksgiving/Christmas) and on each one there was at least one very small dog in the cabin. They were not service dogs, just people taking advantage of ESA to take their pets with them over the holidays. Unless there’s some Jet Blue thing I’m not aware of.
With cats you'd take away their food and water about 8-10h before the flight. We took our cats in cabin from Sweden -> Florida, about 19h total door to door. They were real champs with no accidents. We lined the soft carriers with puppy pads (similar absorbent material as diapers) just in case.
My friend got her cats registered as emotional support animals to avoid the pet fee at her apartment. Turns out they can't charge you if it's 'medically necessary'.
Indeed. I love dogs too but happen to be allergic. As are a lot of us. Boggles my mind that this is just not even considered by either airlines or pet owners, when bringing them into closed-air-circulation system where we're trapped like sardines for many hours :<
I was seated next to a person with a small furry dog, who proceeded to tell me how hypoallergenic (marketing thing - no such thing) it was as I proceeded to sneeze and leek the entire flight :<
For what its worth, nothing about commercial airplanes is a "closed-air-circulation system". The air is continually refreshed from the outside at a rate of about 20 times per hour.
Airplanes aren’t closed-air circulation systems. Air is pulled in from the outside and heated before being injected into the cabin which releases air to the atmosphere directly through openings on the aircraft. You get more fresh are on airplane than you do in the airport you were sitting in before you boarded it.
Heating isn't a problem, cooling is. Most aircraft use "bleed air" from the compressor on the engine. That air is extremely hot (>150°C), so it requires a lot of cooling. Aircraft air conditioners are known as "packs" or "air-cycle machines", as they don't use any refrigerant, just compression/expansion and heat exchange with the outside air. This is also why you can smell oil and jet fuel when the engines start.
Air isn't recycled in to this system because the cabin pressure is too low, but air already inside the cabin is circulated around to avoid it stagnating.
It's exceedingly rare for airlines to even have peanuts as an option for this reason (maybe never?). Do you remember any recent examples where they had them?
I fly relatively frequently across a wide array of airlines and even before this discussion noticed the stark absence of peanuts. I can even picture the red Southwest branded packet of pretzels as the “default classic” option. Hmm, interesting.
I love dogs, but you're ruining everything for the people who actually need service animals.
I saw a dog with one of those fake "Emotional support animal" vests on take a dump in the frozen food aisle of the supermarket. When it was done, the owner just kept on walking.
People who use animals as fashion accessories and to draw attention to themselves should be punished.
Sadly, the Starbucks near me not only allows pets in, it has a corkboard where people are encouraged to post photos of their animals in the store.
I’d guess this is the case for 90% of the animals on planes.
I’ll rarely see a real service dog that’s actually trained and wearing a real vest. Most are fake ESAs (fake in the sense that there’s no real regulation or standard and it’s just to give the appearance of being official or service dog like so people are afraid to deny the pet).
I think this is unethical and makes it harder for people with real service dogs, but I find a lot of dog owners get angry when I’ve mentioned this and blame the airlines for making it hard to fly with pets.
There's usually a limit of 20lb including the carrying case, which rules out most dogs from flying in the cabin unless they are registered as an ESA. See Mr Bentley for a good example.
I think the mistake we are all prone to is assuming that everyone experiences existence approximately the same way that we do.
It might not be that she was so bold as to admit her wrongdoing, but that she simply doesn't possess whatever it is that causes someone to actively analyze and predict the world around them.
I noticed this more and more, people are starting to become unable to understand that others have a different subjective experience of the world that is just as valid.
I've had so much trouble shipping my cat with me going places for an extended period of time during the winter. Almost everyone tells me to just register him as a service animal. Those same people would gasp in horror at the idea of pretending to be disabled for preferential treatment in any other situation.
I find this very curious, as I've traveled with a cat on coast-to-coast flights three times. All I had to do was pay a fee to the airline and provide proof of health at check-in.
I did it on Delta, Northwest (now also Delta), and United.
My cat is too large to fit under the seat. FAA regulations no longer allow you to purchase a seat for a cat either. The only option is to put the cat in cargo. This has led to a problem almost every time I've flown. Problems I've had include:
1. It's too cold to transport the cat to cargo.
2. My flight gets rerouted, but in a way that's different from my cat's flight.
3. The health certificate must be the salmon copy, not the canary copy.
4. Here is the regulation that I found that says in the state I'm coming from, it's the canary copy that gets given to the airline. What do you mean I have to get a second health certificate from a vet in this state? I've flown multiple times and I've never had to go through this before.
5. Here is your goddamned salmon copy of the health
certificate. What do you mean the letter of acclimation expired? Last week he could withstand temperatures of 35 degrees for brief periods of time, but all of a sudden this week he can't?
6. The letter of acclimation is missing, or incorrect, or I forgot it and the vet says she'll fax a new one to the office, but then half an hour later it still isn't there and I missed the flight cutoff.
7. A change in flights means the health certificate is no longer valid and I have to get another one.
8. Cargo is closed at that time. Their system shouldn't have even let me book that flight. Nobody is sure how this even possible.
Mostly it's just the first one, but this means sometimes I have to repeatedly cancel and rebook my flight which is expensive and annoying.
I also know several people that have bragged about printing out a internet fill in the blanks certificate claiming that their pet is a registered emotional support service animal, which they then of course use to bully the airlines into letting their pet ride in the cabin.
I also have completely had it with the large numbers of people I see at a nearby supermarket who walk their dogs, meet other dogs, treat the store as a dog park, and even let their dogs ride in the shopping carts with the food. It needs to stop. Have talked to the store manager who is sympathetic but says that all these people have certificates claiming the animal is a service animal and they are thus legally required to allow the animals in.
How long ago was that? Rules have changed a lot in the last 1-2 years, and "registering online" doesn't really cut it anymore.
These days, traveling with an ESA is much harder. You need to actually submit a form signed by your doctor / psychologist / therapist to the airlines 48 hours prior to departure to register the animal on the flight.
She didn't care about telling you because you didn't do anything about it, and she knew you wouldn't. People are starting to realize that everyone else is so caught up in their own crap they will never take the time to concern themselves with someone else's.
> I just remember being so blown away that she assumed a stranger would be 100% on board with this tactic as to tell me about it unvarnished that I was stunned into silence.
It doesn't matter if you're on board with this tactic or not. What are you going to do? Tell the flight attendant? Will they believe you, or her? Do you think they will want to adjudicate a 'he said she said', when the consequences of adjudicating wrongly might be 'we harassed a person who has a legitimate service animal'? [1]
Are they going to throw the person in question off the plane, with a parachute? Ban them from flying with that airline? Sue them for tricking the airline?
Will taking any of these actions make the flight attendant's life easier?
The person who told you probably expected there to not be any consequences, even if you rat them out, and they are probably correct.
[1] The ADA loves these kinds of situations. I would be shocked if airlines didn't train their staff to uncritically accept claims that a dog is a service animal. The cost of accepting a dog on board are low. The cost of telling a person with a disability to go pound sand can be a six-figure lawsuit.
I'm not opposed to service animals in any way, but this is purely a money grab:
> Spirit Airlines Inc told regulators it lost “millions of dollars in pet carriage fees from passengers fraudulently claiming their ‘house pets are service or support animals.’”
They just want the pet fee to let an animal in a carrier replace the normal underseat luggage.
I'm not sure what the fee is for Spirit Airlines, but for United Airlines it is $125 each direction.
$125 is steep, but if you have a dog that sheds, it's hard to argue it wouldn't be harder to clean up all that hair versus cleaning up after your average passenger.
You're required to keep the dog in the bag under the seat for the entire flight so they shouldn't really affect cleaning.
I have two issues with the fee.
1) It only covers one way. For a round trip itinerary you are looking at $250 - $400 for the pet fee. That can be more expensive than the actual ticket.
2) Your pet counts as your carry on item. I would be a little less bothered if the dog was allowed in addition to your carry on and personal items or if the airline included a free checked bag with the fee to offset the carry on. Since the dog counts as your carry on, you have to pay an additional $25+ each way to check a bag you might've otherwise carried on the plane.
On the other hand, it does mean that effective ticket prices would now be more expensive for people who have service animals. While not necessarily malicious, it is a form of discrimination. Airlines don't charge overweight passengers extra for seatbelt extenders.
For me it is hardly surprising that people who love their dogs or cats (and essentially treat them as family members) would go the extra mile to take them in the cabin, to ensure their physical and emotional safety. The alternative is to treat them as a disposable piece of luggage (which IMHO is inhumane and cruel for a life companion, human or not).
Sometimes you need to travel with your pet. Unavoidably. Maybe you can't afford to kennel. Maybe you are moving. There are a thousand variables in this as to why an animal is brought from one place to another, and the way we do that long distance is through air travel.
Already it's normalized. No one is protesting in the streets about a cat aboard a plane.
I bounce between two cities (not something I planned on when I got the pup) and when I’m gone for a week or two my pup stays w my mother. It’s odd that there is NO amount of money short of NetJets money that will let you bring a 35lb dog in a plane without the ESA cert. I’ve asked to buy her seat, keep her crated, belt the crate into the seat, etc. The options are drive, stow the dog under the plane and cross your fingers it’s only traumatic, or get the ESA.
Airlines could do so much better with price discrimination than they do. Back three rows are dog rows, one dog per row. Pay double for the ticket. First airline to do it will make a killing. Have a behavior and temperament verification course if you like. Make the little guys wear a Hannibal lector mask if they’re big enough to be dangerous. The current system minimizes revenue, convenience for dog owners, and doesn’t preserve convenience for non-dog owners. It’s mind boggling.
you'd check in your dog in cargo, give it tranquilizers, and pray it comes out alive on the other end.... elderly dogs or dogs with congestive heart failure or short nose dogs with breathing problems...
I totally get that, but, she wasn't moving or anything. Just going on a weekend visit somewhere and wanted to bring the dog.
Hire a dog sitter, maybe? Or as another commenter mentions, if you care that much, pay for a seat for your non-service dog. Something many airlines still let you do, you just have to pay for it.
I wasn't aware you could buy an additional seat for your pet. I didn't think space was the issue - rather it was behavioral issues e.g dog starts panicking from the noise or change in air pressure and the disruptions that could cause to the operation of the flight. Plus passengers with allergies.
Should we not bring our dogs anywhere in public then? The onus is on the owner to control their animal in public or else they'd get fined or whatever. Air travel should be no different than a park.
I love dogs; have one myself. But there are lots of shitty owners out there that let their dogs run amok. On the ground that's merely annoying, but in the air it can be far more serious.
The problem is that an airplane cabin is a confined space and if there is a behavioral issue, nothing can be done about it until the plane is landed somewhere.
> The onus is on the owner to control their animal in public
Unfortunately, most do not. And then they just go "oh, she's friendly, don't worry", when their dog jumps up into some 3-year-old's face and scares the crap out of them...
Last time I did it (and it will be the last time...), it was $200 for the dog to go in a soft pet carrier under the seat and you could only check in at customer service so better be there an hour earlier than normal. I don't think our tickets were even that much. I can totally empathize with someone bringing a fake ESA in the cabin for financial/convenience sake.
Yea, what services is the airline providing in exchange for that extra fee? That’s what I never understood. They charge $100-300 for cargo that has to stay under the seat in an enclosed carrier the whole time. I could understand an extra deposit, that is only lost if the pet causes actual damage to the airline, but otherwise if all goes smoothly (as is probably the case 99% of the time), it should be free. People are understandably recognizing that airlines are just bilking pet owners as much as possible, just because they can.
Or, just maybe, the added customer support requirements for dealing with customers with pets in the cabin actually costs the airlines tens of millions of dollars per year, and your idealized version of the perfect pet voyage which doesn’t negatively impact any airline operation or fellow customer experience is not taking into account the total possible impact.
Maybe the fee is not intended to recoup actual cost but act as a deterrent. Of course, if you charge high fees while blindly accepting "emotional support animals" to mean something other than pet, people find easy ways around it, so it doesn't really work that well.
People move over water, you know. Sometimes even while still being in the same country! (You can bring your pets from the continental US to Hawaii; there aren’t even quarantine periods for it.)
Those pet transportation services are for large animals like horses, and for exotics. The costs are prohibitive for regular pets (i.e. not your million-dollar tiger.)
2.5k "not prohibitive". lol alright. I've moved 3 times over seas. Never has is cost anywhere near 2.5k (including when my family moved to the US in 91).
91 was almost 30 years ago. $2.5k today is the cost of an economy round-trip ticket from the US to someplace like India or China around the December holidays.
I think if the only animals in airplane cabins were service animals and pets of people moving long distances, the impact would be extremely small. It wouldn't be an extremely common hassle that essentially every flyer has to deal with.
Source: I lived there and have friends whose pets had to go through quarantine. You can either do the quarantine on the mainland before travel, or in Hawaii after travel.
If we’re being snarky, ships also move over water you know, and you can ship your animal in a crate and the crew can feed it and clean up after it, regardless of size. People shouldn’t have to put up with your dog peeing/crapping in the cabin on a long transoceanic flight. It can ride in the cargo hold or on a ship just fine.
This is not true. Dogs for example must fit under the seat in a kennel to be in the cabin vs cargo on most airlines. That limits size to <30lbs in most cases. Traveling with a pet in cargo on a plane that has a heated and pressured hold is very doable however and airlines publish their safety records for pet transit.
i've driven for 20+ hours on 7+ occasions to avoid checking in my dog.... would never do it unless absolutely necessary 1-time thing (relocating to another continent).
it is hardly surprising that people who love their dogs or cats (and essentially treat them as family members), would go an extra mile to take them in the cabin,
People have been flying with animals in the cabin for decades. I've done it three times with cats since the 1990's.
The difference is that back then, it was to transport the animal from one side of the country to the other safely, so the animal stayed in its container under the seat.
Today, attention whores treat other living creatures like they're fashion accessories, and let them run around the cabin and sit in the seats and do whatever they want, as long as it gets them the attention they crave.
> The difference is that back then, it was to transport the animal from one side of the country to the other safely, so the animal stayed in its container under the sea
Many, if not most, of these folk just have larger dogs that don't qualify for under-seat.
I drove my golden retriever across the country on three occasions (~130 hours of driving all told?). I wish there were a reasonable and ethical flight option, but I would never trust an animal to cargo.
I fly dozens of times a year. I've seen plenty of animals flying properly (in a soft sided crate, under the seat). I have never once seen an animal allow to run around the plane, and I imagine if someone tried to do that with their animals the flight attendants would put a stop to it quite quickly, given the obvious hazard that poses.
Are you referring to this article (it was the only recent one I could find about a rabbit on a plane)? https://www.insider.com/rabbit-business-class-flight-photos-... The article explains that the rabbit was brought on to the plane in a crate, but was allowed out by the flight attendants, since the passenger had an empty seat next to them and the attendants enjoyed playing with the rabbit. That hardly sounds like "attention whores [who] treat other living creatures like they're fashion accessories, and let them run around the cabin and sit in the seats and do whatever they want". It is another example of potential abuse of the concept of an ESA, but I certainly wouldn't want to subject my pet to the conditions of the cargo hold for a trans-pacific flight.
Completely ban them [ESA] with no exceptions. It's ludicrous and very illustrative of a very American mindset. Namely to exploit every possible gap in any process or system despite the clarity that you are operating outside the intended scope of it.
I know a woman who flew with her dog as an emotional support animal to assist with her anxiety. Her day job was as an air stewardess.
The attitude is, if they don't stop you, it's not my fault I can exploit the system. You see it everywhere in America. Less so in Europe.
Some examples of ridiculous behaviour by the owners:
I've fostered a dog that was fully trained as a service dog, but it was disqualified from being put into service because the vet found a hip dysplasia. The dog never pulled on its leash while I was walking it, and it immediately obeyed a bunch of commands (come, sit, heel, side, quiet, leave it, etc.) without the need for me to repeat. When I eventually got a dog of my own, I worked hard to train it because it was just so awesome to have a dog that was well behaved.
The last time I saw a "service dog" on a plane, it looked like it weighed about as much as its owner. As soon as the plane door opened after landing, the dog lunged toward the door, banging back and forth in the aisle. The owner could barely hold it back, and they weren't giving any commands to the dog. The flight attendant made a snarky comment, "What a wonderfully trained service animal!" I'm sure they know exactly how a genuine service animal behaves, and they are probably completely fed up with the widespread abuse of the service animal exemption.
This jumped out at me like an easily solvable problem because of what you describe; we could have dogs complete an obedience test to earn the service dog designation.
I didn't even think pets could be "upgraded" to service dogs, I figured they all came from licensed training camps.
Not that I would do this, but, my dog would easily pass any of your service dog tests and he's only one year old.
While there's lots of abuse by people bringing obviously untrained and unqualified animals on a flight, there is just as much abuse by people who take well trained dogs on flights and simply don't want to subject them to cargo transport -- the abuse is just much less noticed for obvious reasons.
Personally, I would prefer to simply adjust the system so that any sufficiently capable dog can travel in the cabin for a fee, which would of course be waived for people with disabilities.
It's a pretty low bar for any dog that doesn't have major behavioral issues; I'd expect any dog with a non-dumbass owner and a good home from birth to be able to pass. Even many hard-core rescues could probably pass after a few years in a stable home.
A variant of this test for airline travel would probably not be too hard to design.
One of the problems with making any particular test mandatory is that the test operator can price gouge and then genuine service dogs will become even more expensive. So, such a rule would have to be paired with price controls on the test.
As far as I know, there is no way to legally verify that an animal is a service animal. I remember when I worked as a bus driver we were extremely limited (legally) in the questions we could ask, basically just "Is it a service animal?". It would be very easy to lie although I never had problems with untrained dogs.
The amount of "emotional support animals" at the local university is pretty ridiculous as well. I'm pretty sure students just lie so they can have a dog while they live in dorms.
> This jumped out at me like an easily solvable problem because of what you describe; we could have dogs complete an obedience test to earn the service dog designation.
Many cities in Germany require a test before letting you to keep the dog in the city at all. Very well behaved dogs on the streets, even without leashes
My understanding is that service animals are already limited to just dogs and miniature horses. It sounds like this is just allowing airlines to ignore ESAs as a privileged category.
Edit:
After some digging, apparently the Aviation Carrier Access Act[1] does not use the ADA definition for service animals, but instead uses its own definition, which is more expansive [2].
Service animals are meant to be able to help accommodate physical tasks. Most animals aren't good for these tasks and there are a few animals that work well for this.
Emotional support animals can have a much broader definition because what someone derives emotional support from can vary widely. No one would argue that a turtle is likely to help someone walk down the street. However, emotional attachments could make a turtle emotionally supportive. This is why emotional support animals are such a nebulous category.
Some people will argue for registration or notes from doctors. However, that really just means that people with means get what they want (whether they need it or not) while other patients might go lacking. For example, medical marijuana was a way for friends of mine to go to a doctor they knew would prescribe it, pay a little money, and get access to it. A registration system that relied on such a sign-off might similarly be a very small hoop to jump through. Plus, what happens when someone arrives with a fake registration? This isn't even a judgement on that person in particular. Unscrupulous people will create registries that are fake and get people to pay fees and provide them with a print out.
This is something that's really hard to get right. Let's say that 99% of people are good people. If you're on a 300 seat plane, the likelihood of at least one crappy person is decent.
I think this goes deeper into what we do about the small minority of people who think that anything they do to get what they want is ok. What do we do about the person who thinks, "I'm just running into the store for 5 minutes, I can park in the bike lane"? In that case, it's easy because there isn't a legitimate reason for that behavior. But when there are legitimate reasons, it becomes a lot more difficult. What do we do about the person who thinks, "I won't have to pay to fly my pet if I claim they're treating a psychological issue"?
In that case, there's no great answer. Barriers can also harm people who need the animals. Given what I've seen with medical pot, I'm not sure that it would provide a large barrier for people with a little money/privilege.
I personally find it angering when people abuse systems set up to help people. I really dislike flying with animals on a plane. At the same time, I'm not sure I could support this rule change. Emotional support isn't the same as physical assistance. It doesn't require the same training or animal types. Maybe we're going to start saying (as a society) that if you need emotional support, you'd better get it from one of the few sanctioned animal types. I think the biggest issue is requiring the same training as physical assistant animals. Service animal training costs a lot of money and that's going to put a large burden on people that might not have that kind of money.
What do we do in situations where a small number of people abuse something meant to improve people's lives when there's no great way of discerning who is legitimate in their need and who is abusing it?
They are not. That's why clarification is needed here. The Americans with Disabilities Act prevents discrimination against service animals without expressly defining them. As of last time I checked there was no federally approved or recognized training requirements or certification program that is required to proclaim a pet as a service animal. For less that >$30 on amazon you get a vest and official tag, the ADA created a bit of a mess.
"For some blind people [...] guide horses serve as a compelling alternative to guide dogs. The animals are mild-mannered and fast learners, with nearly 360-degree vision. They may also offer balance support to individuals with physical disabilities."
Also, dogs only live for 8-10 years, while miniature horses live for 35-40 years.
They can easily fit in the back seat of a hatchback.
The main downside for the blind guide horse user is having every single person that sees them run up and say some variant of "OMG IS THAT A HORSE!?!?!?!" Even with a dog blind persons just trying to go about their business get a ton of unwanted attention and a horse draws an order of magnitude more.
One also needs to be able to pasture it. It doesn't take a ton of land, but a guide dog can live in an urban apartment and a horse can't, at least not without being miserable.
> Service animals are defined as dogs and miniature horses that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. [0]
The headline refers to service animals, but the article refers to barring emotional support animals and removing mini-horses as service animals that can fly:
> The U.S. Transportation Department on Wednesday proposed giving airlines the power to bar emotional support animals from cabins and limit the definition of a service animal to a trained dog.
Good. It cheapens those with real service dogs and real needs. Taking advantage of the system with improperly trained “emotional therapy” animals who misbehave makes it harder for legit service dogs to have credibility in the real world. I have a friend with a legit service animal need who always gets crap from the public or employees at restaurants/businesses. My friend reminds employees of businesses about discrimination and then politely lets them know vaguely what the dog is for. But this is all because people are abusing the system with emotional ponies, therapy snakes, etc..
I took an international flight a few months ago and overheard the flight attendant talking to a passenger and mocking how lenient our service dog rules are.
Everyone is willing to abuse the system to an extent for personal gain (some more than others). Many systems provide special exceptions for emotional needs. It's a social taboo to question someone's assessment of their own emotional needs. Naturally, this means many people fake or exaggerate their emotional needs to get what they want.
This isn't a new phenominon. The increased awareness of emotional health issues just means we keep seeing more systems implementing those exceptions.
Hardening systems against exploitation is difficult and at some point not cost effective.
Regardless, we do not have the means to accurately disagnose someone else's mental health without relying on their own assessment. We know mental health problems are real, but anyone can get themselves diagnosed with almost any mental issue if they're a convincing liar. What can we realistically do about it?
With severe enough issues, it's not necessarily a matter of confusing skepticism with dismissal, it's that either one is extremely anxiety inducing on top of the main issue. I've known people with serious anxiety disorders, and for them, one of the worst parts about going out in public was not dealing with their anxiety, but dealing with how others would react to their anxiety. The last thing they wanted or needed at the time when their issues were flaring up was an interrogation from some stranger, especially if that stranger was in a position to deny or delay them access to the help they needed.
ESA abuse definitely makes it harder for people with real issues and real ESAs. And while I understand the issues it causes when people abuse the system, like most "public outcries" over abuses, I worry that we're going to overcorrect on this one.
The most shocking thing to me as a consumer is just how difficult it really is to fly a pet somewhere. This summer, my wife and I plan to go to Europe for a while, and want to bring our dog, so we don’t burden a friend with him for a month.
I have gone on most major airlines websites, blogs, etc. and there is really no good source of information out there! In fact most US -> Europe airlines won’t even allow an animal in the cargo hold during summer months due to the heat. Okay, fine.
So let’s bring him in the cabin. Is he under 15lbs? Nope, you cannot bring it with you. Instead we are currently exploring this very loophole because there is simply no other alternative. When you cross oceans there is really no way get your animal there without the help of other people. I guess the reason a solution doesn’t exist is because it’s somewhat a niche problem, and airlines are focused on volume.
Any and all suggestions are welcomed. If you have a large dog that has flown internationally, please email me.
You would never be allowed to take a non-service dog to New Zealand, any (non-service dog) Animial going to NZ is put in quarantine for 1 month on arrival
Unfortunately this is a crummy situation for those who really need, say, emotional support animals, but sadly this is a situation where the bad apples ruined it for everyone. Two days ago I watched a “service animal” pee in the corner at Schiphol, and on a Delta flight I once put my bag under the seat in front of me, only to discover that I put it in a puddle of urine from yet another “service animal”. At this point it mostly feels out of control.
The funny part is nobody "needs" an ESA. Real service animals are put through a grueling multi-year training program, have a high wash-out rate, and cost tens of thousands of dollars. ESAs can be "registered" for free online with absolutely no training or assessment of any kind... because they don't actually perform any kind of "service" like real service animals do.
Pits and other dog breeds often require significant socialization and responsible owners or they can be dangerous to other people and animals, like any animal. Unfortunately the same sort of person who would fake a "service animal" is the sort who should not be an owner of such a dog breed.
You can't ignore that the problem of being mauled by a dog relies on the dog's capacity to do so.
I am not concerned with the terribleness of some Pomeranian owner, because a Pomeranian can do me no real damage.
In general, I am not concerned with people bending the rules for their non-shedding lap dog. What does concern me are dogs that can A. shed or B. easily kill a human being in a confined space.
Dogs are not humans, so we do not need to ensure equal treatment by pet-related policies.
I have a take on this that I suspect is going to be unpopular.
I had a close friend who obviously had various mental health problems -- probably PTSD from a brutal childhood, major social anxiety -- but no diagnoses. I mean, I'm not a doctor, so feel free to take that with a grain of salt, but he quite clearly had issues, and limited means to go see one. Anyway, he regularly used cannabis. Although he probably would describe his use of cannabis as recreational, I think for him, and for a lot of people who use it with undiagnosed health problems, cannabis "feels good" because it's actually therapeutic.
I think something similar can be said for pets and animals in general. Some people have disabilities that prevent them from living their lives to the fullest. Some people have pretty severe anxiety around travel. And some people in those categories don't even have diagnoses. All they know is their animals provide comfort.
Sure, if you're someone with autism, bad social anxiety, or PTSD, it's known that there can be a lot of safety inherent to a relationship with a creature who won't judge you cruelly for being who you are. But on the less extreme side, some people are dealing with anxiety or depression driven by grief, shitty jobs, financial insecurity, or other issues, and having a loved pet close to you -- especially when you're traveling, which sucks for a lot of people -- can make an enormous difference.
One thing that I see missing from discussion here is that airlines and businesses in general have a financial stake in limiting what's required of them with regard to accessibility, and historically they've fought and continue to fight tooth and nail to reduce such requirements, and even when they lose, their actual implementation is often minimal and piss-poor. So I don't think their "wins" are to be celebrated
Further, I'd argue that the headline itself is sensationalized: turkeys and possums on planes are red herrings, as are the anecdotes in the comments around "so-and-so said they got their dog registered just so he could fly with her". Why did she want him to fly with her then? Sure, a passenger with a turkey or a possum might cost the airlines more money -- but to what extent is the average consumer even impacted by someone bringing a possum on the plane?
Finally, to the folks who suddenly care about animal welfare when we're talking about folks with mental health related disabilities, you don't always have to fly with animals in cargo. A number of airlines allow animals to fly in the cabin with you, with certain restrictions.
I have some combination of OCD and generalized anxiety disorder. In general, pets make me very uncomfortable, so your argument cuts both way too. Others' emotionally support animal is my emotionally distressed animal.
I've never had one of my dogs "certified as a support animal" or any other official recognition beyond a rabies tag; but I've had a member of the pack who was "truck dog" and could go somewhere with me at need since forever. For all the reasons you mention, people who benefit from their animals presence are often worth tolerating, if not welcoming.
One of my standards is that a service animal should be at least as polite and pleasant company as the person its assisting. I've never met a (formally designated or not) "familiar" that wasn't.
There are however, folks who will do things like drag a terrified baby goat with them through walmart, because they just picked it up and they can say "service animal" ... I personally would like to do awful things to these folks, but thats why i have a truck dog with me, to remind me such things are impolite.
Yeah I'm fine with this. People have been abusing ESA and IMO only actual service animals, those trained to perform a specific set of functions, should be allowed in the cabin.
I guess I was mistaken. I thought there was a separate compartment for pets aboard flights. That's what I assumed people were doing when they passed their dog-in-crate to the airline employee
Animals that are small enough can travel in-cabin for an extra fee, generally in a crate under the seat, while larger animals fly in hard crates in the cargo area.
"[The U.S. Transportation Department] also wants comment on whether it should allow miniature horses to serve as service animals."
Putting aside my instinct that this proposal is just too ridiculous to contemplate, has anyone considered the safety implications of a 70-180 kg strong-legged hoofed animal flying around the cabin in turbulence? Or running around after a crash?
I thought this was weird too but my understanding is that miniature horses actually make fantastic service animals. That article touches on some of the reasons, including that they're housebroken, intelligent, capable of leading the blind, can be trained to have a very calm demeanor, are often more patient than dogs, mitigate issues with allergies because they don't shed and they can't get fleas.
Also the big one: miniature horses live significantly longer than dogs, reducing the number of times an owner has to re-pair and form a new relationship with a new service animal.
Miniature horses can actually be trained as service animals, "guide horses" for sight impaired are even protected by the same legislation as dogs in some places.
In this context though, maybe it needs it's own seat.
If we fly home for a few weeks for the holidays we'll often bring our dog with us. We pay $125 to bring them in the cabin and they must remain in a carrier under a seat for the duration of the flight. Cheaper than paying a kennel/dog sitter and just easier for everyone all together. No problems at all so far after years of doing this.
The last time I was checking in at special services (due to the dog), the employee told me she registered her dog as an emotional support animal to bypass the fee. This was the airline employee giving this advice. At that point it was clear this was just a big joke. From what I understand now you need to have a doctor's note from a mental health professional and a bunch of other paperwork in order to bring your emotional support dog without a fee/carrier. I figured that would stop a lot of tom foolery, I guess not.
A member of my family is a medical professional and they told me that they frequently see people who either come in because they want a work excuse (that they don't really need) or want their animal classified as an emotional support animal. I think the most absurd one I heard was they wanted their chicken classified as an emotional support animal. It's definitely time to draw a line.
EDIT: They told me that 99% of the time they say no to the latter request and will only give a work excuse if that person is genuinely sick. They also told me that they work with plenty of providers who just don't care and hand out the work excuses and emotional support certifications upon request.
As a side note, and to be fair to chicken, my dad used to have one who was a "real" pet (of course at the time even the idea of "emotional support" by a pet or else was unknown).
This chick used to come when called, jumped on my dad's lap on command, made "special" sounds for my father only and (it lived with the other chickens) for some reasons was always the first one to come out the henhouse in the morning and the last one to get into it in the evening.
So - bar defining it an ESA for not paying something - that particular chicken actually was companion to my dad.
This needs to be more widespread. People really abuse their animals and whole emotional support concept and I remember a few years ago the hundreds of people who thought it was okay to bring their emotional support pet to New York Comic Con.
The best bakery I know of in Washington, DC, is run by a lawyer of considerable experience. He takes a very firm line against emotional support animals. Anyone wishing to argue the case finds out that he knows the law.
Legit service animals are very well behaved and never a problem.
There’s no question though that this issue of pets masquerading as service animals has become a big problem. Makes sense that places are starting to crack down.
Misleading title. Actual service dogs, like seeing eye dogs for the blind, are still allowed.
Other, self-declared "emotional support animals" are banned.
> "The U.S. Transportation Department on Wednesday proposed giving airlines the power to bar emotional support animals from cabins and limit the definition of a service animal to a trained dog."
Yes there is rampant ESA abuse, but note the airlines all charge $175 each way for a pet. Isn’t that obvious collusion?
It’s $350 to take my small dog to LA for the weekend when the round trip ticket for a human is $100. She is great on planes and has never had even a minor incident.
> The problem is they all magically arrived at an exorbitant price that seems to reflect monopoly pricing. Also fees have standardized recently.
Playing devil's advocate, if the market determines prices then isn't settling on a price to be expected across practically indistinguishable providers of the same exact service?
What if there is a minor incident? What if it's a major incident? Animals are not people and have inherent risks. It's your choice to have a pet and fly with it.
This whole song and dance is absurd. People are currently flying with their cat or whatever as a 'service animal'. It's pretty normalized and to be expected to see while traveling anywhere. Why not just let you fly with your pet to begin with?
Entitled people who make the lives of actual disabled people harder are the worst kind of selfish. It's also why Social Security hearings take several years to get for some people who aren't visibly disabled. This is because whole extended families apply since they have shady lawyers and doctors to help them invent conditions. It's a game to them, taking help away from people who need it.
This culture with dogs and animals have reached nonsense proportions. It has gone to the other extreme, and it needs to be reigned back in.
I was in an elevator, and some guy brought his dog to work, or something. I was surprised that I might have flinched, said WTF, and the dog flinched, and growled. At that moment I thought the dog was going to attack me, or the others in the small elevator cabin. And this was a medium to large sized dog, that was also beyond the owner’s ability to easily control.
And I see more often now, people walking their bulldogs, as if they are nice and friendly pets. They are not. They are vicious attack animals.
These dogs are not professionally trained. There is no certification that can guarantee that the dogs are safe to the public. And the owners are typically incompetent and irresponsible morons that shouldn’t have a dog to begin with.
And there are those idiots that brings their large dogs into department stores, and walks them around as if it’s perfectly ok. It’s absolutely abnormal to be shopping at a Target, and to have to avoid some idiot’s large dog.
It’s also irritating to walk through a store like Nordstrom Rack, where people bring their small dogs into the store, and let them sit inside the cart. There’s nothing worse than placing your new clothes into a shopping cart soiled by a dog’s urine or poop. But I digress, Nordstrom Rack must have a policy to allow these people that privilege to bring in their small dogs. I try to avoid the place if I can, because of this. I’ll vote with my wallet.
I’m all for letting people have service animals, if they are blind, or physically handicapped. At least those service animals are professionally trained (or at least I hope there is a valid certification for that).
But for all others with their supposedly “emotional support animals”, then they are just abusing the system, and taking advantage of the good graces of others. It is only a matter of time before one of these dogs violently acts out and attacks someone or a child in public.
What will it take to outlaw this? Do we have to wait until one of these dogs kills a child in order to ban them?
>Do we have to wait until one of these dogs kills a child in order to ban them?
I doubt even that will be enough. I share a lot of your fears. It hasn't happened yet, but one day someone is going to lose track/control of their pit bull here in California where even small women can take them on walks and it will attack me while I'm walking/running home. So I have to make sure to walk on busy streets so if I do get attacked, I at least have someone who can help. There was one time I was walking somewhere and two different pet owners crossed paths and their dogs started barking and aggressing each other, one of the owners even fell but on the bright side he didn't lose grasp of the leash and the girl with the big ass dog was able to keep her dog under control. Another time recently, I was going home with my sister and we walked past a house where some dog owners lost control of their dog which started running for us, but luckily it was friendly and wasn't out for blood. Small cute breed. But what about when it isn't? It's fucked.
I’m for liability insurance required for more things, let the actuaries sort it out. Breed-based insurance tiers with training certification discounts. It’s a great solution for guns too, as there is a third party w a strong incentive to price the risk accurately.
I had an ESA certificate for a while and may get one again soon. I never lied to get one, either. That said, the online certification basically amounts to a long-form version of needing to answer yes to two questions:
1 - does flying stress you out?
2 - does your dog make you feel better?
I never once used it for anything but flying, because things like bringing your dog to the groceries or the movies or a restaurant is just unnecessary. If you find yourself splitting your time between two cities that are >1 day drive apart, you have only a few choices:
1 - Don't have a dog over 18lbs
2 - Leave dog half the time
3 - Risk dog's life and guarantee a Very Bad Time under the plane
4 - Get ESA certificate
I think airlines are leaving money on the table and should just have a relatively expensive travel-certification obedience course and charge a boatload for it. I'd happily pay $500 per year to have my dog authorized to fly in the cabin without an ESA (which incidentally cost less than half that).
To pre-address the typical objections (and to steal from my own HN comment almost 3 years ago):
"People are allergic!" For $100 a tiny shedding dog can ride in a very-not-dander-proof container. My dog is non-shedding.
"They can be noisy!" So can your toddler. So can above tiny dog. Mine isn't.
"It's like parking in a handicap spot!" No silly, my dog takes up my foot space, no one else's
"The airline is losing money!" My dog & I weigh less combined than plenty of people who pay the same fare. I've also offered to buy a seat for my dog and leave her in a large crate on the seat. Not an option.
"The guy next to you doesn't want a dog around!" See answer 1. Also, 90% of people are happy to be distracted from the horror of flying. Anyone who isn't can easily trade seats, since most people are happy to sit by the pup.
Imagine being so selfish and incapable of doing normal human things, like sit in a chair for a few hours, that you are willing to put a whole plane full of people through a bunch of nonsense and potential danger.
I'm genuinely curious if you read the comment or just 5 or 6 words. What exactly is the potential danger?
The way the system is set up is very stupid. It does in fact allow untrained, large, dangerous, poop-on-the-plane dogs onto planes with an online BS certificate. That doesn't mean that anyone who uses an online cert is putting people at risk on getting eaten by a Rhodesian Ridgeback. It is in fact possible to just train your dog properly...
> I think airlines are leaving money on the table and should just have a relatively expensive travel-certification obedience course and charge a boatload for it. I'd happily pay $500 per year to have my dog authorized to fly in the cabin without an ESA (which incidentally cost less than half that).
I've toyed with the idea of drafting a fake press release with Southwest branding announcing a program like this and just hoping to catch the wave:
fake news -> real excitement -> free PR -> real news
Alas my design chops are shit and I'm a bit over-committed on projects as it is.
I just remember being so blown away that she assumed a stranger would be 100% on board with this tactic as to tell me about it unvarnished that I was stunned into silence.
I love dogs, but you're ruining everything for the people who actually need service animals.