7 ms·

It’s Time to End the Scam of Flying Pets

65 points by rafaelc 9y ago

HarryHirsch 9y ago
In Germany the dog pays half-fare and gets on the train: https://www.bahn.de/p/view/angebot/zusatzticket/hunde.shtml https://www.bahn.de/p/view/angebot/zusatzticket/hunde.shtml The only question they'll ask at the station is: does Fluffy have a ticket.
- gwbas1c 9y ago
  Germans tend to be better at following social rules than Americans. Far too many Americans delude themselves to think that their dog is well-behaved in public when their dog is really a nuisance. Part of it comes from Germany's culture: It's publicly acceptable to scold someone. In the US, it's considered rude for me to yell at an irresponsible dog owner.
  - tonfa 9y ago
    Also if Germany is similar to Switzerland, there's mandatory training for dog owners, and dogs are very well educated (e.g. they are not supposed to bark). Nice thing is that kids are also taught to e.g. always ask the owner before interacting with a dog.
  - ckozlowski 9y ago
    I'll agree with this in part. (I lived in Germany for 3 years with a rescue dog.) I'll never forget throwing away glass on a Sunday (I missed the sign saying it was forbidden) and getting stern looks by no less than three people, with one leaning over her balcony railing to tell me not to do that. ...and while that seemed incredelous to me at first, the American, it wasn't too hard to understand after a while that there was a culture of consideration to others, and it was vigorously enforced by society. And it extended to dogs. Mind you, their dogs still bark, people still screw up, and I encountered more than one dog off-leash while mine still was....even though I knew it was forbidden. No society is 100%. But I never forgot that early incident, and after a few years I found myself performing my own glare when someone fired up a gas lawnmower on a Sunday. =P Mind you, I ran my vacuum on a Sunday, but so did my neighbors, and there was an unspoken agreement that so long as it was done later in the day it was fine. I guess what I'm coming around to is this: It's a bit more than just "there are social rules and we follow them." People are, by and large, considerate, and they want others to be considerate it to. My time over there was really positive, and I credit this as part of it.
  - scruple 9y ago
    > Far too many Americans delude themselves to think that their dog is well-behaved in public when their dog is really a nuisance. I've been chased more times than I care to remember while I'm out on runs by animals who are loose from their yards or just off leash in areas with leash laws. I've actually been bitten, both times on my lower right leg. I have two dogs of my own, and I like to think that I have a basic understanding and respect for the high-stress situation that this scenario can cause. I never let them off leash outside of the dog park or high-fence back yards, like our own. It's just too risky for everyone, including and perhaps most importantly for the animal(s). Couple this with the bad experiences and I have basically zero patience left for this situation. My experience with others has been a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of situation. If you confront these people for their bad behavior you will inevitably be made to feel like you're the asshole, even for things as seemingly innocuous as "Hey, how are you doing? You know that animals are supposed to be on leashes here by law, right?" I actually carry a small clip-on video camera with me now, that I bought after one particularly nasty encounter last summer.
dionidium 9y ago
One principle of politeness might be phrased as, "avoid (avoidable) behaviors that create only benefits for me and only inconveniences for the people around me." Taking your dog on a plane fails this test. Sure, some people don't mind. I mind. A lot. And so do a lot of other people. Bringing your dog on a plane means either not realizing or not caring that you're creating such a large disturbance for the rest of us, neither of which is a category to be proud of.
- fbdjskajxb 9y ago
  Babies are even more disruptive, from my experience. If people hate traveling with dogs or babies enough, they could pay for a more private form of transport. It’s not worth the price to me. Edited to remove option of banning the dogs (although, according to the story it seems like the airlines are able to restrict which dogs are allowed?).
  - fra 9y ago
    Airlines cannot legally ban service animals.
    - dymk 9y ago
      A real service animal won’t be a nuisance to nearly everybody on board. The problem is that most dogs with vests on are not actually trained in basic obedience, much less to perform a medical service.
  - david-gpu 9y ago
    My son is almost two and has never met his grandparents, who live in another continent. They are in poor health and can't travel themselves. How do you suggest we deal with this? A boat would be far too slow, and a private jet would be far too expensive. In these circumstances, I will bring my toddler in the plane, try to keep him quiet, and bring baggies with complimentary snacks and earplugs for the passengers sitting next to us. I don't think I can realistically do more than that. What I'm not going to do is wait five years until the child is older, because I have no assurance that my parents will be alive by then. Sorry if that inconveniences you.
FussyZeus 9y ago
This is basically a long form of "Shitty people ruin things for everyone." Honestly if you've ever wanted to know why any given policy is in place that seems obvious and common sense, it's these people screwing things up for everyone else.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  The corollary is that similar people are the reason for seemingly nonsensical warnings on products. When your aftershave reminds you not to treat it as a beverage, that’s because some knucklehead tried to chug it.
willart4food 9y ago
I like peacocks. They taste better than chicken!
- dang 9y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
rconti 9y ago
So many complaints in the comments about being single and the burden of having to find someone to care for your pet while you're out of town. If you can't afford to maintain your pet, you can't afford a pet. Don't take it out on the rest of us. I often joke that I'm not responsible enough to own a dog, or that if I was I'd just have kids. I can leave extra food for the cats and they handle themselves for up to 5 days. If it's more than that, we find someone to check in on them. The fix is not to socialize my 'problem' by finding a way to scam on medical needs and gamble that nobody will challenge my 'medical condition'.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  >If you can't afford to maintain your pet, you can't afford a pet. Don't take it out on the rest of us. Yes, but this logic is a slippery slope that drops off into a sewer depending on how far you want to take it. If you tell certain people that you don't own snow tires because you usually commute via train and you drive maybe two days a year with snow on the ground and they'll tell you you're a menace to society and if you can't afford to go all out you shouldn't own a car at all. Everything has trade-offs and I'm more inclined to say everyone else should be thicker skinned rather than individuals should be better behaved. It's not the individual's job to look out for everyone else. Bringing a pet or a crying baby on a plane isn't a big deal even if it's a pain in the butt for everyone else. As much as people need to be considerate people also need to not be thin skinned when others are inconsiderate. That said, you'd better be pretty f-ed up in the head if you're bringing your dog into the supermarket, on public transit, into Walmart, etc for "emotional support". Edit: Not that I know where the line should be drawn, just that it probably should be drawn somewhere. Also revised some wording. I should have known better than picking this example for this demographic.
  - geofft 9y ago
    > If you tell certain people that you don't own snow tires because you usually commute via train and you drive maybe two days a year with snow on the ground and they'll tell you you're a menace to society and if you can't afford to go all out you shouldn't own a car. This seems reasonable to me, is this supposed to be some absurd conclusion? A car that is out of control can easily kill people. If you don't have the equipment to safely drive your car when there's snow on the ground, drive zero days a year when there's snow on the ground. If you're risking other people's lives because you want the convenience of driving a car, yes, you're a menace to society. > As much as people need to be considerate people also need to not be snowflakes when others are inconsiderate. Does the word "snowflake" have a coherent meaning any more? I thought the original idea was that snowflakes were unique, which means that as an insult, it would be better placed against the person who's doing something unusual compared to the rest of society.
T4NG 9y ago
Lets be real, emotional support animals are a completely nonsensical burden for everyone on the flight that outweighs what the passenger bringing it gets. Its not justified to bring on a pet into a metal tin can that everyone now has to deal with. This action isnt fair to people with allergies and phobias and they cant get anything out of this aside from putting up with it.
- sp332 9y ago
  1. If you need a support animal, you should leave. 2. If you're allergic to a support animal, you should leave. Why is one of those more acceptable than the other?
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    How many people with allergies equates to one challenged person who requires a service pet?
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > If you need a support animal People are contending the claim of "need". Nobody is seriously contesting the right to fly of service animals, as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act [1]. [1] https://adata.org/factsheet/service-animals https://adata.org/factsheet/service-animals
  - geofft 9y ago
    In theory a system can be designed where the people in group 2 don't encounter animals when they fly. As a person with flight-relevant allergies, namely peanuts, I've been happy that many airlines are moving towards other snacks, and I don't need to insist that every single airlines does as long as I have reasonable options. A system cannot be designed where people in group 1 don't encounter anxieties when they fly. So, from a pure, amoral optimization standpoint, it's better to have a system where people in both groups can fly than one where people in only one group can fly. (Which I think is the position you're advocating.)
  - T4NG 9y ago
    support animals are generally a joke and not used for their intended purpose anymore as the article articulates while being allergic is a much more real issue and unfair as a passenger.
canercandan 9y ago
It's maybe time to start up a non specist animal friendly "for real" flight company...
- spinlock 9y ago
  This is basically southwest. Because you choose who you sit next to, people with service animals board first then people who like dogs, etc... board and sit next to them. It works really well.
  - DrScump 9y ago
    people with service animals board first That would be an incentive to bring inauthentic "service animals" along, wouldn't it?
flowersoldier 9y ago
I work at a healthcare facility, and the "emotional support" animals are a huge problem. We only allow Service Animals in our building. I frequently ask patients to keep their birds and even reptiles in the car. The ADA is very specific in that they only recognize dogs and miniature horses as Service Animals. It is worth noting that "emotional support" animals do not enjoy the same protections that the ADA provides. It doesn't stop patients from claiming that their emotional support animal is an actual Service Animal, but requiring proof is a slippery slope toward a discrimination lawsuit.
- fhood 9y ago
  Ok, I must ask, how on earth was the decision made that dogs and miniature horses would be the two allowable service animals? Edit: I figured it out. Pack animals.
  - jaggederest 9y ago
    You're incorrect. Miniature horses are used in situations where someone is e.g. blind and also allergic to dogs. They're used as guide animals in much the same way as seeing eye dogs.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The ADA is very specific in that they only recognize dogs and miniature horses as Service Animals. Pedantically, only dogs are service animals under ADA regs (28 CFR 35.104), but guide horses have very similar rules under the ADA.
- ghthor 9y ago
  Seems ridiulous that asking for proof of a valid service animal is a slippery slope. It seems welldefined, and a legit service animal would likely carry the documentation with them.
  - fbdjskajxb 9y ago
    The ADA doesn’t create any standard for documentation. Where’s the definition?
tptacek 9y ago
Counterpoint from Patrick from Popehat (on Twitter): A lot of the people who need support animals are war veterans, people who've endured horrific accidents, rape victims. I got my dog from a labradoodle breeder who trains puppies to detect epileptic seizures. I used to mock these people, when I was uninformed. He's not rebutting the argument that people cheat. In fact, the more seriously you take the idea of emotional support animals, the more repulsive the cheaters probably are to you.
- majormajor 9y ago
  It's like gluten-free stuff. If you have celiac and are sensitive to cross-contamination, the more people hop on the trend and encourage places to chase the trend in a sloppy way, the worse off you are. A small but vulnerable number of people get screwed because a larger population piggybacks. It seems like there might be an opportunity hiding in here for carriers to offer certain animal-friendly routes, but there's probably still a lot of liability issues to work out in there. I'd bet you could make it significantly cheaper than pet boarding, though, for a lot of trips.
  - santoshalper 9y ago
    My one acquaintance with Celiac loves the gluten-free movement, in spite of thinking it is bullshit. She loved bread, and can't fathom why so many people are trying to glom on to this bandwagon, but she loves how many more restaurants are available to her now. Your point about sloppy trend-chasers is a good one, but at least so far, she's not had an issue.
- anotherevan 9y ago
  All the examples cited by Patrick and legitimate and the animal has been trained. If there is not registration and certification for these important service animals, then there absolutely should be. It should be a simple matter at the end of the day for the airline to be able to provided verifiable documentation as to a service animal's legitimacy.
spinlock 9y ago
The author has obviously never traveled with an emotional support animal. The difference between how you are treated by TSA with an animal and without is amazing. I travel with my dog and, as soon as TSA sees the vest, I am allowed to go through the pre-check line (I do not have pre-check) so I don't have to take off my shoes, etc... TSA is also much nicer to people traveling with animals. Rather than the typical surly bullshit, they are nice and want to pet your dog, etc... So, if the author really thinks that animals are a bigger problem than TSA, they are probably one of those people who "cheats" security by paying for pre-check to avoid going through proper security. I am much more concerned with how the incompetence and rudeness of TSA is being used to extract money and personal information from travelers. If airlines and airports want people to stop lying about the reason they are brining their pets on the airplane, perhaps we should start by making TSA stop lying about the benefit they provide. When we see TSA extracting billions of dollars from taxpayers for security theater, it's easy to assume that the only people still playing by the rules are suckers.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- waster 9y ago
  I have had quite different experience. I have traveled a fair amount with my son and his medium-sized, and thus atypical-looking service dog. TSA has never given us any kind of special treatment, except once late at night in Denver when an agent allowed us to go through the pre-check lane and thus not wait in a long line. Even then, we still had to go through all the same procedures as the full lane: Shoes off, gear out and screened as usual, service dog gear off, me carry or walk with service dog through screener, swab my hands, and only with all-clear, be allowed to recollect gear.
- cptskippy 9y ago
  > So, if the author really thinks that animals are a bigger problem than TSA, they are probably one of those people who "cheats" security by paying for pre-check to avoid going through proper security. As opposed to someone who brings an "emotional support" animal with them to cheat their way through security? The main problems I have with "emotional support" animals is their owners. These people are usually inconsiderate of others and completely self centered. I've witnessed on multiple occasions dogs shitting or pissing all over commuter trains and their owners just hop off the train and leave it for everyone else to deal with. You'll often see these people at the gate trying to get priority seating by shoving their dog in the attendent's face while the attendant is trying to help other passengers with legitimate needs. I've been nipped by one of these dogs on a flight and the owner's response was "she feels threatened by you." I suggest she might put the dog in her cage since I can't move seats at which point she tried to have my seat moved by an attendant.
everdev 9y ago
Pets in the cabin seems insane to me. I'm allergic to cats and can't imagine the discomfort of cat dander circulating throughout the cabin. Flying seems unpleasant enough with making it a petting zoo too.
- RandallBrown 9y ago
  Cats are allowed in the cabin but have to be kept inside of a carry on container. I doubt much of their dander is getting out. If you've flown more than a couple times, you've probably had a cat on your flight. The one time I flew with my cat, the people sitting next to me didn't even notice her.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > I'm allergic to cats and can't imagine the discomfort of cat dander circulating throughout the cabin I'm allergic to cats. I'm also a former aerospace engineer. Cabin air is completely refreshed about 20 times an hour [1]. I've sat next to a cat and not noticed. They're in a carrier, too drugged or terrified to toss fur about; quiet; and small. Zyrtec won't make the screaming baby any more pleasant. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34708785/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/airplane-air-not-bad-you-think/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34708785/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/a...
giarc 9y ago
My first run in with this was on a flight from Charlotte to St. Maarten in the Caribbean. There was a couple behind us with a "service dog" beagle. The guy was 25 and in the international med school there. There were 2 other couples on the flight, all in the same med school with "service animals". I watched them while getting their luggage, their dogs were terribly trained and jumping all over the place. I guess there is no requirement that a service animal is well behaved (outside of seeing eye dogs etc), but it was so obviously an attempt to get their animals to their temporary home for free. They all had the same, fresh out of the package, eBay "Support Dog" vest. If you have $100,000 to go to med school, you have $250 to fly the dog properly.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  > If you have $100,000 to go to med school, you have $250 to fly the dog properly. If you have the money to fly to St. Maarten for vacation, you have the money to fly the dog properly. Or the money to kennel it.
- oconnore 9y ago
  More like $500, with the significant possibility of Delta killing your puppy.
croisillon 9y ago
Oftentimes I see people with a Superman t-shirt waiting to board at the airport. Similarly to these birds, I wonder why they need a plane to fly.
cletus 9y ago
This seems easy enough to solve: just charge people for an extra seat if they're taking an emotional support animal. Then of course have a (strict) policy where that fee can be waived in cases of medical need.
deckard1 9y ago
There is a fascinating series on Netflix right now called Animal Airport. It's about animal control that takes place at Heathrow. It's a glimpse of what goes on behind the scenes. At a few points, you'll see these "emotional support" animals (which still have to go through proper procedures). It seemed to mostly be all American travelers. You get the sense that the staff thinks they are mostly bullshit, but this is a family show and they are a bit too polite to say it in front of cameras. One of the dogs was a tiny little chihuahua (I think), which was stretching credulity for me. This dog, like most small dogs in such a situation, was already a nervous basketcase. How is that calming anyone?
OhDagny 9y ago
Screw airlines and their $100 fees Screw morons who push the envelope at the expense of other people And screw this society for pushing everyone to the brink of insanity
doctorwho 9y ago
Non-service animals, crying and seat kicking children, the sick, the morbidly obese (if you spill over your assigned seat), smokers, people who wear too much cologne/perfume, people who put their feet/knees on the seat in front of them, snorers, stinkers, those allergic to peanuts and all other classes of public irritants should have spots in a comfortable but separate cabin.
- fenwick67 9y ago
  This separate but comfortable cabin already exists and is called "a commercial flight", what you are looking for is a "chartered flight".
  - doctorwho 9y ago
    Business class is close but unless the cabins are separated you still have to mix with the unwashed when they sneak in to befoul the toilet. The mouth breathers really all belong in cargo. But that would be unkind. Maybe they could be sedated for the duration of their trip. I'd also be okay with sedating myself in first class so I could get a good nap in.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rflrob 9y ago
I'm tempted to look at the "scam of flying pets" and think that instead the solution is to liberalize policies on allowing pets, with the potential for penalties for violators of the social order. The analogy that springs to mind is "medical" marijuana or "medical" alcohol during prohibition [1]. Without denying the genuine needs of some people, others "scammed" the system, finding doctors who would say that yes, you do indeed need a prescription for whatever it is that ails you. Many of the prescriptions were medically bogus, but the behavior itself isn't inherently socially harmful. Switching to a system where you punish bad behavior rather than the possibility of bad behavior has generally been well regarded in places where these substances have been legalized (opinions may vary, of course, but so far as I know, no state that has legalized recreational cannabis has seen serious pushes to recriminalize it), so why not do the same for pets. If you had to put down a deposit to fly with a pet, but had it reimbursed assuming good behavior, then you could ding the people whose pets get into fights with service animals, defecate, etc, while allowing responsible pet owners freer movement. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/during-prohibition-your-doctor-could-write-you-prescription-booze-180947940/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/during-prohibition-yo...
chadash 9y ago
From the text of the Air Carrier Access Act [1] > You are never required to accommodate certain unusual service animals (e.g., snakes, other reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders) as service animals in the cabin. With respect to all other animals, including unusual or exotic animals that are presented as service animals (e.g., miniature horses, pigs, monkeys), as a carrier you must determine whether any factors preclude their traveling in the cabin as service animals (e.g., whether the animal is too large or heavy to be accommodated in the cabin, whether the animal would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others, whether it would cause a significant disruption of cabin service, whether it would be prohibited from entering a foreign country that is the flight's destination). If no such factors preclude the animal from traveling in the cabin, you must permit it to do so. However, as a foreign carrier, you are not required to carry service animals other than dogs. Is anyone else annoyed that airlines are required [2] to allow people to take an untrained emotional support pig on a flight unless they can show a specific reason why it shouldn't be allowed on (and the burden of proof seems to be on the airline)? Obviously, the way this law is written, it makes it a big hassle for the airlines to deny travel to these animals, especially if the person comes with documentation from a mental health professional (who they can find online to give them a letter for $99). In the case of a highly trained service animal (think seeing eye dog or a dog trained to detect imminent seizures) I can understand why we allow them on. Those dogs are incredibly well trained. As I understand it, very few dogs have the demeanor to pass the training. If you've got an animal travelling with you for emotional support reasons, we should have a similar requirement for training. If your animal isn't trained (and certified by a reputable organization) to behave around other people, why should an airline be forced to accommodate you bringing your animal into a confined and crowded space? Our laws should force people claiming emotional support animals to have them be trained and certified to behave well in a public space (service animals, from what I've seen, already meet this standard) if airlines are going to be forced to let them fly for free. [1] https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/specialneeds/disabilities/ACAA-Final-Rule.aspx https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/specialneeds... [2] As far as I know, there's nothing preventing an airline from allowing animals to fly for free, similar to how many hotels are pet friendly. Someone could open an airline that's pet friendly and I'm sure there's a niche market for it. But in my mind, unless there's a very compelling reason, we shouldn't force airlines to allow animals on board for free. In my mind, highly trained service animals have a compelling enough reason to force airlines to allow them on board. Untrained emotional support animals don't.
zeveb 9y ago
I've long thought that the whole 'emotional support animal' term is not ideal: after all, aren't any non-working dogs emotional support animals? I think something like 'service animal' is more appropriate. > Ultimately, I hope the Department of Transportation creates a fairly strict uniform rule for all airlines. Why not let the individual airlines decide? Pet owners can choose to fly Pet Airways, and everyone else can choose not to. It's not immediately obvious that this is a case where there must be a uniform rule (although it would be tricky if one had to switch carriers mid-trip). > It’s true that some people honestly believe they have an emotional condition that an animal solves. But they are often confusing their preferences with actual medical needs. That, I think, is a quote which aptly describes much of 21st-century American society: a failure to recognise the difference between preference & reality.
- chadash 9y ago
  > Why not let the individual airlines decide? Airlines are free to allow pets aboard. But they've all made the decision not to allow it, except for a fee (and even then, only for small animals that go under your seat). Right now, the airlines are forced to allow emotional support animals. I don't think many people would be against a pet friendly airline. I think the issue is that the airlines don't want to be pet friendly (most likely they'd rather not deal with the hassle), but the law requires them to accommodate trained service animals (e.g. seeing eye dogs or dogs trained to detect imminent seizures), which most people probably don't object to as well as emotional support dogs (which many people do object to because they feel that the system is being gamed)
anotherevan 9y ago
While telling my kids about the ridiculousness of this story about an emotional support peacock, and how awesome legitimate assistance and support animals are, my daughter told me the story of Rojo[1] the therapy llama. It was from a book she has called Unlikely Heroes[2] about awesome animals. A very sweet story. [1] http://rojothellama.com/ http://rojothellama.com/ [2] https://www.workman.com/products/unlikely-heroes https://www.workman.com/products/unlikely-heroes
sunstone 9y ago
When you look at the current US President it's pretty clear that mutual trust and commonsense, once the bedrock of the country, has long since been displaced by every wo/man for themselves. Largely this has been brought about by corporations first sending jobs overseas with wanton enthusiasm and then splashing cash all over Washington to influence government. Call it the paradox of thrift version 2.0.

65 points by rafaelc 9y ago

In Germany the dog pays half-fare and gets on the train: https://www.bahn.de/p/view/angebot/zusatzticket/hunde.shtml https://www.bahn.de/p/view/angebot/zusatzticket/hunde.shtml The only question they'll ask at the station is: does Fluffy have a ticket.

gwbas1c 9y ago
Germans tend to be better at following social rules than Americans. Far too many Americans delude themselves to think that their dog is well-behaved in public when their dog is really a nuisance. Part of it comes from Germany's culture: It's publicly acceptable to scold someone. In the US, it's considered rude for me to yell at an irresponsible dog owner.
- tonfa 9y ago
  Also if Germany is similar to Switzerland, there's mandatory training for dog owners, and dogs are very well educated (e.g. they are not supposed to bark). Nice thing is that kids are also taught to e.g. always ask the owner before interacting with a dog.
- ckozlowski 9y ago
  I'll agree with this in part. (I lived in Germany for 3 years with a rescue dog.) I'll never forget throwing away glass on a Sunday (I missed the sign saying it was forbidden) and getting stern looks by no less than three people, with one leaning over her balcony railing to tell me not to do that. ...and while that seemed incredelous to me at first, the American, it wasn't too hard to understand after a while that there was a culture of consideration to others, and it was vigorously enforced by society. And it extended to dogs. Mind you, their dogs still bark, people still screw up, and I encountered more than one dog off-leash while mine still was....even though I knew it was forbidden. No society is 100%. But I never forgot that early incident, and after a few years I found myself performing my own glare when someone fired up a gas lawnmower on a Sunday. =P Mind you, I ran my vacuum on a Sunday, but so did my neighbors, and there was an unspoken agreement that so long as it was done later in the day it was fine. I guess what I'm coming around to is this: It's a bit more than just "there are social rules and we follow them." People are, by and large, considerate, and they want others to be considerate it to. My time over there was really positive, and I credit this as part of it.
- scruple 9y ago
  > Far too many Americans delude themselves to think that their dog is well-behaved in public when their dog is really a nuisance. I've been chased more times than I care to remember while I'm out on runs by animals who are loose from their yards or just off leash in areas with leash laws. I've actually been bitten, both times on my lower right leg. I have two dogs of my own, and I like to think that I have a basic understanding and respect for the high-stress situation that this scenario can cause. I never let them off leash outside of the dog park or high-fence back yards, like our own. It's just too risky for everyone, including and perhaps most importantly for the animal(s). Couple this with the bad experiences and I have basically zero patience left for this situation. My experience with others has been a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of situation. If you confront these people for their bad behavior you will inevitably be made to feel like you're the asshole, even for things as seemingly innocuous as "Hey, how are you doing? You know that animals are supposed to be on leashes here by law, right?" I actually carry a small clip-on video camera with me now, that I bought after one particularly nasty encounter last summer.

dionidium 9y ago

One principle of politeness might be phrased as, "avoid (avoidable) behaviors that create only benefits for me and only inconveniences for the people around me." Taking your dog on a plane fails this test. Sure, some people don't mind. I mind. A lot. And so do a lot of other people. Bringing your dog on a plane means either not realizing or not caring that you're creating such a large disturbance for the rest of us, neither of which is a category to be proud of.

fbdjskajxb 9y ago
Babies are even more disruptive, from my experience. If people hate traveling with dogs or babies enough, they could pay for a more private form of transport. It’s not worth the price to me. Edited to remove option of banning the dogs (although, according to the story it seems like the airlines are able to restrict which dogs are allowed?).
- fra 9y ago
  Airlines cannot legally ban service animals.
  - dymk 9y ago
    A real service animal won’t be a nuisance to nearly everybody on board. The problem is that most dogs with vests on are not actually trained in basic obedience, much less to perform a medical service.
- david-gpu 9y ago
  My son is almost two and has never met his grandparents, who live in another continent. They are in poor health and can't travel themselves. How do you suggest we deal with this? A boat would be far too slow, and a private jet would be far too expensive. In these circumstances, I will bring my toddler in the plane, try to keep him quiet, and bring baggies with complimentary snacks and earplugs for the passengers sitting next to us. I don't think I can realistically do more than that. What I'm not going to do is wait five years until the child is older, because I have no assurance that my parents will be alive by then. Sorry if that inconveniences you.

FussyZeus 9y ago

This is basically a long form of "Shitty people ruin things for everyone." Honestly if you've ever wanted to know why any given policy is in place that seems obvious and common sense, it's these people screwing things up for everyone else.

IntronExon 9y ago
The corollary is that similar people are the reason for seemingly nonsensical warnings on products. When your aftershave reminds you not to treat it as a beverage, that’s because some knucklehead tried to chug it.

willart4food 9y ago

I like peacocks. They taste better than chicken!

dang 9y ago
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rconti 9y ago

So many complaints in the comments about being single and the burden of having to find someone to care for your pet while you're out of town. If you can't afford to maintain your pet, you can't afford a pet. Don't take it out on the rest of us. I often joke that I'm not responsible enough to own a dog, or that if I was I'd just have kids. I can leave extra food for the cats and they handle themselves for up to 5 days. If it's more than that, we find someone to check in on them. The fix is not to socialize my 'problem' by finding a way to scam on medical needs and gamble that nobody will challenge my 'medical condition'.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
>If you can't afford to maintain your pet, you can't afford a pet. Don't take it out on the rest of us. Yes, but this logic is a slippery slope that drops off into a sewer depending on how far you want to take it. If you tell certain people that you don't own snow tires because you usually commute via train and you drive maybe two days a year with snow on the ground and they'll tell you you're a menace to society and if you can't afford to go all out you shouldn't own a car at all. Everything has trade-offs and I'm more inclined to say everyone else should be thicker skinned rather than individuals should be better behaved. It's not the individual's job to look out for everyone else. Bringing a pet or a crying baby on a plane isn't a big deal even if it's a pain in the butt for everyone else. As much as people need to be considerate people also need to not be thin skinned when others are inconsiderate. That said, you'd better be pretty f-ed up in the head if you're bringing your dog into the supermarket, on public transit, into Walmart, etc for "emotional support". Edit: Not that I know where the line should be drawn, just that it probably should be drawn somewhere. Also revised some wording. I should have known better than picking this example for this demographic.
- geofft 9y ago
  > If you tell certain people that you don't own snow tires because you usually commute via train and you drive maybe two days a year with snow on the ground and they'll tell you you're a menace to society and if you can't afford to go all out you shouldn't own a car. This seems reasonable to me, is this supposed to be some absurd conclusion? A car that is out of control can easily kill people. If you don't have the equipment to safely drive your car when there's snow on the ground, drive zero days a year when there's snow on the ground. If you're risking other people's lives because you want the convenience of driving a car, yes, you're a menace to society. > As much as people need to be considerate people also need to not be snowflakes when others are inconsiderate. Does the word "snowflake" have a coherent meaning any more? I thought the original idea was that snowflakes were unique, which means that as an insult, it would be better placed against the person who's doing something unusual compared to the rest of society.

T4NG 9y ago

Lets be real, emotional support animals are a completely nonsensical burden for everyone on the flight that outweighs what the passenger bringing it gets. Its not justified to bring on a pet into a metal tin can that everyone now has to deal with. This action isnt fair to people with allergies and phobias and they cant get anything out of this aside from putting up with it.

sp332 9y ago
1. If you need a support animal, you should leave. 2. If you're allergic to a support animal, you should leave. Why is one of those more acceptable than the other?
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  How many people with allergies equates to one challenged person who requires a service pet?
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > If you need a support animal People are contending the claim of "need". Nobody is seriously contesting the right to fly of service animals, as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act [1]. [1] https://adata.org/factsheet/service-animals https://adata.org/factsheet/service-animals
- geofft 9y ago
  In theory a system can be designed where the people in group 2 don't encounter animals when they fly. As a person with flight-relevant allergies, namely peanuts, I've been happy that many airlines are moving towards other snacks, and I don't need to insist that every single airlines does as long as I have reasonable options. A system cannot be designed where people in group 1 don't encounter anxieties when they fly. So, from a pure, amoral optimization standpoint, it's better to have a system where people in both groups can fly than one where people in only one group can fly. (Which I think is the position you're advocating.)
- T4NG 9y ago
  support animals are generally a joke and not used for their intended purpose anymore as the article articulates while being allergic is a much more real issue and unfair as a passenger.

canercandan 9y ago

It's maybe time to start up a non specist animal friendly "for real" flight company...

spinlock 9y ago
This is basically southwest. Because you choose who you sit next to, people with service animals board first then people who like dogs, etc... board and sit next to them. It works really well.
- DrScump 9y ago
  people with service animals board first That would be an incentive to bring inauthentic "service animals" along, wouldn't it?

flowersoldier 9y ago

I work at a healthcare facility, and the "emotional support" animals are a huge problem. We only allow Service Animals in our building. I frequently ask patients to keep their birds and even reptiles in the car. The ADA is very specific in that they only recognize dogs and miniature horses as Service Animals. It is worth noting that "emotional support" animals do not enjoy the same protections that the ADA provides. It doesn't stop patients from claiming that their emotional support animal is an actual Service Animal, but requiring proof is a slippery slope toward a discrimination lawsuit.

fhood 9y ago
Ok, I must ask, how on earth was the decision made that dogs and miniature horses would be the two allowable service animals? Edit: I figured it out. Pack animals.
- jaggederest 9y ago
  You're incorrect. Miniature horses are used in situations where someone is e.g. blind and also allergic to dogs. They're used as guide animals in much the same way as seeing eye dogs.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The ADA is very specific in that they only recognize dogs and miniature horses as Service Animals. Pedantically, only dogs are service animals under ADA regs (28 CFR 35.104), but guide horses have very similar rules under the ADA.
ghthor 9y ago
Seems ridiulous that asking for proof of a valid service animal is a slippery slope. It seems welldefined, and a legit service animal would likely carry the documentation with them.
- fbdjskajxb 9y ago
  The ADA doesn’t create any standard for documentation. Where’s the definition?

tptacek 9y ago

Counterpoint from Patrick from Popehat (on Twitter): A lot of the people who need support animals are war veterans, people who've endured horrific accidents, rape victims. I got my dog from a labradoodle breeder who trains puppies to detect epileptic seizures. I used to mock these people, when I was uninformed. He's not rebutting the argument that people cheat. In fact, the more seriously you take the idea of emotional support animals, the more repulsive the cheaters probably are to you.

majormajor 9y ago
It's like gluten-free stuff. If you have celiac and are sensitive to cross-contamination, the more people hop on the trend and encourage places to chase the trend in a sloppy way, the worse off you are. A small but vulnerable number of people get screwed because a larger population piggybacks. It seems like there might be an opportunity hiding in here for carriers to offer certain animal-friendly routes, but there's probably still a lot of liability issues to work out in there. I'd bet you could make it significantly cheaper than pet boarding, though, for a lot of trips.
- santoshalper 9y ago
  My one acquaintance with Celiac loves the gluten-free movement, in spite of thinking it is bullshit. She loved bread, and can't fathom why so many people are trying to glom on to this bandwagon, but she loves how many more restaurants are available to her now. Your point about sloppy trend-chasers is a good one, but at least so far, she's not had an issue.
anotherevan 9y ago
All the examples cited by Patrick and legitimate and the animal has been trained. If there is not registration and certification for these important service animals, then there absolutely should be. It should be a simple matter at the end of the day for the airline to be able to provided verifiable documentation as to a service animal's legitimacy.

spinlock 9y ago

The author has obviously never traveled with an emotional support animal. The difference between how you are treated by TSA with an animal and without is amazing. I travel with my dog and, as soon as TSA sees the vest, I am allowed to go through the pre-check line (I do not have pre-check) so I don't have to take off my shoes, etc... TSA is also much nicer to people traveling with animals. Rather than the typical surly bullshit, they are nice and want to pet your dog, etc... So, if the author really thinks that animals are a bigger problem than TSA, they are probably one of those people who "cheats" security by paying for pre-check to avoid going through proper security. I am much more concerned with how the incompetence and rudeness of TSA is being used to extract money and personal information from travelers. If airlines and airports want people to stop lying about the reason they are brining their pets on the airplane, perhaps we should start by making TSA stop lying about the benefit they provide. When we see TSA extracting billions of dollars from taxpayers for security theater, it's easy to assume that the only people still playing by the rules are suckers.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
waster 9y ago
I have had quite different experience. I have traveled a fair amount with my son and his medium-sized, and thus atypical-looking service dog. TSA has never given us any kind of special treatment, except once late at night in Denver when an agent allowed us to go through the pre-check lane and thus not wait in a long line. Even then, we still had to go through all the same procedures as the full lane: Shoes off, gear out and screened as usual, service dog gear off, me carry or walk with service dog through screener, swab my hands, and only with all-clear, be allowed to recollect gear.
cptskippy 9y ago
> So, if the author really thinks that animals are a bigger problem than TSA, they are probably one of those people who "cheats" security by paying for pre-check to avoid going through proper security. As opposed to someone who brings an "emotional support" animal with them to cheat their way through security? The main problems I have with "emotional support" animals is their owners. These people are usually inconsiderate of others and completely self centered. I've witnessed on multiple occasions dogs shitting or pissing all over commuter trains and their owners just hop off the train and leave it for everyone else to deal with. You'll often see these people at the gate trying to get priority seating by shoving their dog in the attendent's face while the attendant is trying to help other passengers with legitimate needs. I've been nipped by one of these dogs on a flight and the owner's response was "she feels threatened by you." I suggest she might put the dog in her cage since I can't move seats at which point she tried to have my seat moved by an attendant.

everdev 9y ago

Pets in the cabin seems insane to me. I'm allergic to cats and can't imagine the discomfort of cat dander circulating throughout the cabin. Flying seems unpleasant enough with making it a petting zoo too.

RandallBrown 9y ago
Cats are allowed in the cabin but have to be kept inside of a carry on container. I doubt much of their dander is getting out. If you've flown more than a couple times, you've probably had a cat on your flight. The one time I flew with my cat, the people sitting next to me didn't even notice her.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> I'm allergic to cats and can't imagine the discomfort of cat dander circulating throughout the cabin I'm allergic to cats. I'm also a former aerospace engineer. Cabin air is completely refreshed about 20 times an hour [1]. I've sat next to a cat and not noticed. They're in a carrier, too drugged or terrified to toss fur about; quiet; and small. Zyrtec won't make the screaming baby any more pleasant. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34708785/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/airplane-air-not-bad-you-think/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34708785/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/a...

giarc 9y ago

My first run in with this was on a flight from Charlotte to St. Maarten in the Caribbean. There was a couple behind us with a "service dog" beagle. The guy was 25 and in the international med school there. There were 2 other couples on the flight, all in the same med school with "service animals". I watched them while getting their luggage, their dogs were terribly trained and jumping all over the place. I guess there is no requirement that a service animal is well behaved (outside of seeing eye dogs etc), but it was so obviously an attempt to get their animals to their temporary home for free. They all had the same, fresh out of the package, eBay "Support Dog" vest. If you have $100,000 to go to med school, you have $250 to fly the dog properly.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> If you have $100,000 to go to med school, you have $250 to fly the dog properly. If you have the money to fly to St. Maarten for vacation, you have the money to fly the dog properly. Or the money to kennel it.
oconnore 9y ago
More like $500, with the significant possibility of Delta killing your puppy.

croisillon 9y ago

Oftentimes I see people with a Superman t-shirt waiting to board at the airport. Similarly to these birds, I wonder why they need a plane to fly.

cletus 9y ago

This seems easy enough to solve: just charge people for an extra seat if they're taking an emotional support animal. Then of course have a (strict) policy where that fee can be waived in cases of medical need.

deckard1 9y ago

There is a fascinating series on Netflix right now called Animal Airport. It's about animal control that takes place at Heathrow. It's a glimpse of what goes on behind the scenes. At a few points, you'll see these "emotional support" animals (which still have to go through proper procedures). It seemed to mostly be all American travelers. You get the sense that the staff thinks they are mostly bullshit, but this is a family show and they are a bit too polite to say it in front of cameras. One of the dogs was a tiny little chihuahua (I think), which was stretching credulity for me. This dog, like most small dogs in such a situation, was already a nervous basketcase. How is that calming anyone?

OhDagny 9y ago

Screw airlines and their $100 fees Screw morons who push the envelope at the expense of other people And screw this society for pushing everyone to the brink of insanity

doctorwho 9y ago

Non-service animals, crying and seat kicking children, the sick, the morbidly obese (if you spill over your assigned seat), smokers, people who wear too much cologne/perfume, people who put their feet/knees on the seat in front of them, snorers, stinkers, those allergic to peanuts and all other classes of public irritants should have spots in a comfortable but separate cabin.

fenwick67 9y ago
This separate but comfortable cabin already exists and is called "a commercial flight", what you are looking for is a "chartered flight".
- doctorwho 9y ago
  Business class is close but unless the cabins are separated you still have to mix with the unwashed when they sneak in to befoul the toilet. The mouth breathers really all belong in cargo. But that would be unkind. Maybe they could be sedated for the duration of their trip. I'd also be okay with sedating myself in first class so I could get a good nap in.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

rflrob 9y ago

I'm tempted to look at the "scam of flying pets" and think that instead the solution is to liberalize policies on allowing pets, with the potential for penalties for violators of the social order. The analogy that springs to mind is "medical" marijuana or "medical" alcohol during prohibition [1]. Without denying the genuine needs of some people, others "scammed" the system, finding doctors who would say that yes, you do indeed need a prescription for whatever it is that ails you. Many of the prescriptions were medically bogus, but the behavior itself isn't inherently socially harmful. Switching to a system where you punish bad behavior rather than the possibility of bad behavior has generally been well regarded in places where these substances have been legalized (opinions may vary, of course, but so far as I know, no state that has legalized recreational cannabis has seen serious pushes to recriminalize it), so why not do the same for pets. If you had to put down a deposit to fly with a pet, but had it reimbursed assuming good behavior, then you could ding the people whose pets get into fights with service animals, defecate, etc, while allowing responsible pet owners freer movement. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/during-prohibition-your-doctor-could-write-you-prescription-booze-180947940/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/during-prohibition-yo...

chadash 9y ago

From the text of the Air Carrier Access Act [1] > You are never required to accommodate certain unusual service animals (e.g., snakes, other reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders) as service animals in the cabin. With respect to all other animals, including unusual or exotic animals that are presented as service animals (e.g., miniature horses, pigs, monkeys), as a carrier you must determine whether any factors preclude their traveling in the cabin as service animals (e.g., whether the animal is too large or heavy to be accommodated in the cabin, whether the animal would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others, whether it would cause a significant disruption of cabin service, whether it would be prohibited from entering a foreign country that is the flight's destination). If no such factors preclude the animal from traveling in the cabin, you must permit it to do so. However, as a foreign carrier, you are not required to carry service animals other than dogs. Is anyone else annoyed that airlines are required [2] to allow people to take an untrained emotional support pig on a flight unless they can show a specific reason why it shouldn't be allowed on (and the burden of proof seems to be on the airline)? Obviously, the way this law is written, it makes it a big hassle for the airlines to deny travel to these animals, especially if the person comes with documentation from a mental health professional (who they can find online to give them a letter for $99). In the case of a highly trained service animal (think seeing eye dog or a dog trained to detect imminent seizures) I can understand why we allow them on. Those dogs are incredibly well trained. As I understand it, very few dogs have the demeanor to pass the training. If you've got an animal travelling with you for emotional support reasons, we should have a similar requirement for training. If your animal isn't trained (and certified by a reputable organization) to behave around other people, why should an airline be forced to accommodate you bringing your animal into a confined and crowded space? Our laws should force people claiming emotional support animals to have them be trained and certified to behave well in a public space (service animals, from what I've seen, already meet this standard) if airlines are going to be forced to let them fly for free. [1] https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/specialneeds/disabilities/ACAA-Final-Rule.aspx https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/specialneeds... [2] As far as I know, there's nothing preventing an airline from allowing animals to fly for free, similar to how many hotels are pet friendly. Someone could open an airline that's pet friendly and I'm sure there's a niche market for it. But in my mind, unless there's a very compelling reason, we shouldn't force airlines to allow animals on board for free. In my mind, highly trained service animals have a compelling enough reason to force airlines to allow them on board. Untrained emotional support animals don't.

zeveb 9y ago

I've long thought that the whole 'emotional support animal' term is not ideal: after all, aren't any non-working dogs emotional support animals? I think something like 'service animal' is more appropriate. > Ultimately, I hope the Department of Transportation creates a fairly strict uniform rule for all airlines. Why not let the individual airlines decide? Pet owners can choose to fly Pet Airways, and everyone else can choose not to. It's not immediately obvious that this is a case where there must be a uniform rule (although it would be tricky if one had to switch carriers mid-trip). > It’s true that some people honestly believe they have an emotional condition that an animal solves. But they are often confusing their preferences with actual medical needs. That, I think, is a quote which aptly describes much of 21st-century American society: a failure to recognise the difference between preference & reality.

chadash 9y ago
> Why not let the individual airlines decide? Airlines are free to allow pets aboard. But they've all made the decision not to allow it, except for a fee (and even then, only for small animals that go under your seat). Right now, the airlines are forced to allow emotional support animals. I don't think many people would be against a pet friendly airline. I think the issue is that the airlines don't want to be pet friendly (most likely they'd rather not deal with the hassle), but the law requires them to accommodate trained service animals (e.g. seeing eye dogs or dogs trained to detect imminent seizures), which most people probably don't object to as well as emotional support dogs (which many people do object to because they feel that the system is being gamed)

anotherevan 9y ago

While telling my kids about the ridiculousness of this story about an emotional support peacock, and how awesome legitimate assistance and support animals are, my daughter told me the story of Rojo[1] the therapy llama. It was from a book she has called Unlikely Heroes[2] about awesome animals. A very sweet story. [1] http://rojothellama.com/ http://rojothellama.com/ [2] https://www.workman.com/products/unlikely-heroes https://www.workman.com/products/unlikely-heroes

sunstone 9y ago

When you look at the current US President it's pretty clear that mutual trust and commonsense, once the bedrock of the country, has long since been displaced by every wo/man for themselves. Largely this has been brought about by corporations first sending jobs overseas with wanton enthusiasm and then splashing cash all over Washington to influence government. Call it the paradox of thrift version 2.0.