6 ms·

I'm sick and tired of the increasingly rampant abuse of the "service animal" category for people to bring their pets along with them wherever. I don't want to

• jayess 7y ago
  If the airlines wouldn't charge $150 each way for a pet in a carrier, I think the problem would recede.
  • CydeWeys 7y ago
    There are legitimately much higher costs in shipping a pet than, say, the same weight in luggage. Why should passengers be subsidizing others people's pets? I travel a lot, and I know what a huge burden it would be for me to have a pet, so I don't have one. I have drought-tolerant houseplants which can recover from a week going without water. Too many people have pets and then expect others to make unreasonable accommodations for them, when owning a pet is a choice that they made.
• weiming 7y ago
  The flipside is that these actions can also be cruel to animals. I've sat next to one very very miserable non-trained service "comfort" dog on a long flight, who unfortunately got sick (vomiting) mid-flight.
  • asdkhadsj 7y ago
    Worth noting though that if the dog has to fly, this is by far the most humane option. Eg, crating them into the belly where horrible things have already happened (trapped on Arizona tarmac for an hour in full sun comes to mind) shouldn't even be an option. Unfortunately, due to what you mention it seems it's most humane to drive your pet across country rather than a relatively short flight.
    • CydeWeys 7y ago
      Maybe they should do occasional special "pets allowed" flights where you can bring your pet with you in the cabin. It'd be great for people moving cross-country with their pets, and the flights wouldn't need to be that often. As a benefit, this would avoid exposing people with allergies to pets on random flights; if you book the weekly pet flight, you know what you're getting into.
    • colechristensen 7y ago
      Most airlines won't put animals in cargo any more after too many of those things have happened.
      • CydeWeys 7y ago
        Which totally makes sense. There's way too much liability or risk of negative PR in carrying pets in the cargo hold. Airplanes are for people anyway.
    • eloff 7y ago
      My family drove 21 days and 11,000 km from Canada to Panama because the airline refused to allow our dog. It was July and the flight had a layover in Houston. I could see the problem there with the heat in the hold, but we all risked our lives and went through a lot of trouble because the airline couldn't accommodate a Shiba Inu in the cabin. The dog needed a visa for every country we passed through. With notarized veterinary report duly sanctioned by the embassy of every country. Some expired before we could make it to the border and we had to resort to bribes and other techniques to get through. It was a farce because there were stray dogs, goats, cats, pigs, and other animals crossing as they pleased at many of these borders. The airline refunded our tickets, but only after we rejected their helpful suggestion to put the dog down and fly without him. Bet you can guess the airline.
      • JackFr 7y ago
        There are companies whose sole expertise is moving animals long distances domestically and internationally. I imagine it's not cheap, but it is an alternative. Weird that the airline wouldn't suggest that. On the other hand, I see some fun & adventure in the three week drive from Canada to Panama.
  • johnbrodie 7y ago
    There's no way I'd fly with my pet dog given the horror stories of those that do. At best, pets seem to get sub-par treatment, at worst, they are abused and die. I'd think pretending they're a service animal so they can fly _with_ you is better than putting them in a cage and in with the luggage, at least for the animal. Personally, I think people that need service animals deserve that right and should be respected. So I just don't fly with my dog. No real need to, there are plenty of local boarding options, including "doggie daycare" places where he's never locked up.
    • CydeWeys 7y ago
      "I'd think pretending they're a service animal so they can fly _with_ you is better than putting them in a cage and in with the luggage, at least for the animal." Yeah, but it's really bad for all the people out there with legitimate medical issues who do actually need service animals.
  • CydeWeys 7y ago
    Very true. Those pictured horses cannot be enjoying getting crammed into the legroom of a seat. Seems like cruelty to animals to me.
• ohazi 7y ago
  The next time you're seated next to a dog, just let me know and I'll happily switch seats with you. (Wake up, airlines. You nickel and dime us for everything else, let me pay to sit next to a dog already).
  • CydeWeys 7y ago
    I've seen some pretty poorly behaved, barky, aggressive "service" dogs, that also have accidents. I doubt you'd want to sit next to them for the duration of an entire flight.
    • sova 7y ago
      Depends on how much you like Paris Hilton
  • Tempest1981 7y ago
    Is there some size-threshold where the service/therapy animal must have its own seat? Larger than will fit in a duffel bag at your feet? Encroaching on neighboring passenger's legroom? The article does say "airlines are still allowed to reject certain approved animals if they're deemed too large, too dirty, or too dangerous"
• wil421 7y ago
  Yea I’ve see people slap fake service vests on dogs. They will yell at you and tell you that you can’t legally ask them if they are disabled. Also seen people in apartments get letters from therapists when they have large or aggressive breeds that aren’t allowed. The other day I was in a coffee shop. They asked someone to remove her dog and she started a fit about how it’s her service animal. I laughed pretty hard and got a mean look. They went outside to sit and I doubt her tea cup chihuahua was a trained service animal.
  • CydeWeys 7y ago
    "They will yell at you and tell you that you can’t legally ask them if they are disabled." This isn't true, by the way. Businesses aren't allowed to verify the legitimacy of a service animal because that's seen as discrimination, which is most of the problem in itself as it allows any random person to buy a $10 vest from Amazon and use it as a "bring animal everywhere free" card. But there's nothing prohibiting random people like you or me from questioning the legitimacy of a service animal, and if someone gets super defensive about that question, odds are good that it is indeed a fake service animal.
    • whatisthiseven 7y ago
      "and if someone gets super defensive about that question, odds are good that it is indeed a fake service animal." Or maybe they don't want to defend their right to a service animal to every single person that asks and thinks their animal is fake? This strategy might unveil some fakers, but it is also incredibly derisive to those with these animals to be lumped into the same group as fakers.
      • Buttons840 7y ago
        Give the service animal a "license plate" that can be verified on a government website? I guess they could be copied or falsified fairly easily.
        • compsciphd 7y ago
• goodcanadian 7y ago
  Most of the animals flying are just pets. Many airlines allow small pets in the cabin; there is no requirement for them to be service animals.
  • jaredklewis 7y ago
    That's true, however, I think most airlines (for sure, Delta, AA, United, Jet Blue, Alaska, and Southwest): 1. Require non-service pets to be kept inside a carrier for the duration of the flight. 2. Charge customers that bring a pet, whereas service animals fly free. I've seen a few non-service pets on flights, but I've seen service pets far more frequently (based on the fact that they were not in carriers).
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    • scruple 7y ago
      They also limit the number of pets per flight. Or, they used to. Once it became fashionable to pretend pets are service animals my wife and I opted to drive or not bring the dogs with us, so I'm not sure if those rules still exist but I would assume they do. Prior to that it was actually great. Most people rarely even knew they were with us. Oh well.
• qntty 7y ago
  I guess every generation has their own ways of coping with anxious situations. I remember sitting next to and old catholic lady who spent 10 minutes praying on her rosary beads before takeoff. A bit more compact than a horse I guess.
  • dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Faith in god won't carry your luggage though. I can't imagine owning a horse/donkey/mule of any size and not using it as pack animal at every available opportunity.
    • bredren 7y ago
      The statute does not permit a miniature donkey or mule.
• lazyasciiart 7y ago
  People are allowed to bring pets on planes. So yes, most animals on a plane are likely to be just pets?
• imgabe 7y ago
  I think there is a legal difference between a service animal and an "emotional support animal" with the latter having far less stringent requirements and also little to no legal obligation for people to accommodate
• rconti 7y ago
  Yup. Apparently we need to amend HIPAA, or ADA, whatever it is. If you have a need, it should be documented. And then an appropriately-trained airline (or grocery store, or..) staff person should be able to look at your documents. They don't have to know what your disability is. You shouldn't have to suffer the indignity of every single passer-by on the street asking you if you really have a need and what it is. But some kind of basic common-sense framework would curb abuses, which hurt everyone -- the legitimately disabled people the most!
• yumraj 7y ago
  The other day I saw a HUGE pitbull with a service dog vest (or whatever they are called) at a Costco. It was right next to me in the line and it was clear that the owner was in no way disabled. I was not happy for those few very long minutes in the line. And there was no way in hell that I was going to ask that owner if his service dog was legitimate.
  • roywiggins 7y ago
    > it was clear that the owner was in no way disabled How good are you at identifying epileptic people who aren't currently having a seizure?
    • yumraj 7y ago
      Fair enough. But do you need a bloody pit bull as a service dog? Can't you have an animal that is less likely to harm other humans, especially kids. Edit: My issue with pit bull is not about their reputation, since I have no way to verify that. It's more about their size and their ability to cause bodily harm.
      • alsk 7y ago
        This is a good start: https://www.dogsbite.org/ https://www.dogsbite.org/
      • Svoka 7y ago
        You know, this is quite prejudicious. You think that most common service dog, labrador or german shepherd, won't cause you harm if it wanted to?
        • yumraj 7y ago
          > You know, this is quite prejudicious Personally I have an issue with any large dog around me and kids in public spaces. They are faithful to their owners, not the entire humanity.
• mountainofdeath 7y ago
  Service animals are chosen from particular breeds, from particular breeders and highly trained. It's a totally different thing than a random dog with a "service" vest.
• cortic 7y ago
  I'm sick and tired of the rampant aggressive judgmental attitude of under-qualified hyper-opinionated loud mouths on these flights complaining about everyone else and not minding their own business. Who the hell are you to say whether a person is in need of something or not? I live in a country where disabled people are left to rot because their particular disability is not transparent enough; Employees are afraid to leave their house while recovering after major surgery in case someone thinks they look healthy enough to be working. If our current understanding of equality for the disabled force airlines to let miniature horses on (which i very much doubt) then they should be forced to do this in a safe and non-interruptive way or be heavily fined.
• mykowebhn 7y ago
  Almost all the animals I've seen flying were well behaved. That said, I would still much rather sit beside a service animal than a poorly behaved child (or adult).
• traderjane 7y ago
  If people think that animals in the workplace are unprofessional because people may have allergies or fear dogs, then surely public transport applies even more.
• RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  It is also a security loophole. Imagine if 5 hijackers each brought a trained “emotional support” Rottweiler. A trained Rottweiler would be much more dangerous than the pocket knives that are currently banned.
• wahern 7y ago
  I understand all the indignation about people who lie about having a service animal. But are people so rage-filled about this issue that they're not even the least bit fascinated by the fact that the ADA explicitly includes miniature horses as permitted service animals? https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/35.136 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/35.136 Dogs and miniature horses--that's it. There's clearly some hidden history and science here. Come on, this is HN! Shouldn't there be several ranchers and at least one legitimate miniature horse service animal owner-operator eager to explain to us the world of miniature horse service animals? What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of miniature horses as compared to dogs? How small can the horses get? EDIT: The above link is for a regulation regarding government entities; here's the regulation for places of public accommodation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/36.302 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/36.302
  • bredren 7y ago
    I think part of the reaction here is the very idea of a horse. A horse! On a plane. To read your link though, it says "reasonable" accommodation. It specifies that part of the assessment of reasonable accommodation is if the horse must be house broken. Can you imagine having a non-housebroken miniature horse in your row with you? I find this hilarious and I hope it happens to me just for the story. (i)Miniature horses. (1)Reasonable modifications. A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability. (2)Assessment factors. In determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility, a public entity shall consider - (i) The type, size, and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility can accommodate these features; (ii) Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse; (iii) Whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and (iv) Whether the miniature horse's presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation. (3)Other requirements. Paragraphs 35.136(c) through (h) of this section, which apply to service animals, shall also apply to miniature horses.
• dfeojm-zlib 7y ago
  Exactly. This 10^32 times. It's affluenza, "victimhood"-exploiting, pseudo-disability BS. My elderly and frail grandparents never had a disability placard, yet their neighbors had one for at least 30 years without a real disability; the neighbor had one because they were slightly disabled (low %) per compulsory military service discarge. That's understandable, but what's not is this "special-needs" living security blanket that gives others allergic reactions and creates a nuisance to others. If the animal can't behave, there oughta be away to give feedback on the customer/animal such that they won't be able to fly with their fluffy nuisance.