4 ms·

I'm finding a lot of the comments in this thread to be hurtful. Yes, many were abusing the system to register pets as service animals. No, that is not a reason

I'm finding a lot of the comments in this thread to be hurtful. Yes, many were abusing the system to register pets as service animals. No, that is not a reason to forbid the practice which was genuinely helpful to people like myself who have a phobia of flying coupled with anxiety and having a service animal genuinely helps get through a flight without the need for medication. The problem is the desire to not devote resources to verifying the legitimacy of individual claims and instead banning the practice wholesale. Honestly, why make a mockery of this? Chastise people who are obviously trolling or scamming the system.

Miner49er 6y ago
They didn't completely forbid the practice. Dogs are still allowed. How would they verify claims? Ask for a prescription or a note from a doctor or psychiatrist? EDIT: I'm wrong, only service dogs are allowed, so they need to be trained to do a specific task to help a person with a disability. But also, I'm pretty sure verication was already technically required. From AA's website, these forms are required: - Medical / Mental Health Professional Form - Veterinary Health Form, or vaccination record with current rabies vaccination information - Confirmation of Animal Behavior Form
- paxys 6y ago
  > How would they verify claims? Ask for a prescription or a note from a doctor or psychiatrist? Yes?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    The regulations require neither of these things.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
adkadskhj 6y ago
It's also because there's a market for this even from people who aren't "trolling". Flying is difficult for pet owners, full stop. There really needs to be safe, affordable options for pet/dog owners to travel. As the horrible things airlines have done to pets makes it absolutely clear to many that we can't put our animals lives in the Airlines hands.
- DeRock 6y ago
  > There really needs to be safe, affordable options for pet/dog owners to travel. Why? Are you suggesting some form of subsidy? Transporting live animals is expensive, and pet ownership (let alone flying with them) is not a human right. If the market does not land on a safe and affordable option, then so be it, solely the pet owner should bare that cost.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > If the market does not land on a safe and affordable option, then so be it, solely the pet owner should bare that cost. Right now the problem for pet owners (of which I am one) is that there are no acceptable options, even at a significantly increased cost. Putting a pet in the luggage compartment is not acceptable, and airlines basically don't give you any other option unless your pet is small enough to fit in its carrier under your seat, which very few pets are. Airlines have options to support people traveling with infants and small children; similar options for people traveling with pets, even if they cost more, would be helpful.
    - DeRock 6y ago
      > Putting a pet in the luggage compartment is not acceptable, and airlines basically don't give you any other option Well, whats your suggestion then? If there was a better option, it feels like the airlines would have taken advantage of that opportunity. My guess is that the alternatives are too logistically/operationally expensive, and the pet owners aren't willing to bear that cost. > Airlines have options to support people traveling with infants and small children I see a lot of this sentiment in the comments, comparing infants and pets. One is essential to the continuation of our species. The other is a comfort, choice and privilege. It makes sense that our willingness to accept and subsidize is completely different between the two. You don't get a dependent tax deduction either, just because you have a dog.
gamblor956 6y ago
The problem is the desire to not devote resources to verifying the legitimacy of individual claims and instead banning the practice wholesale. Honestly, why make a mockery of this? Chastise people who are obviously trolling or scamming the system. It would have required a lot of resources to verify every individual claim and that would have raised prices for everyone. The burden of proof has been shifted to where it should always have been: on the person wanting to bring the animal.
- Ansil849 6y ago
  That burden of proof has already existed in the form of having to file the requisite paperwork including a letter from a doctor as well as a specific animal behavior form. It was not just a matter of claiming $random_animal is an emotional support animal. The problem appears to be that airlines ignored the requisite paperwork or the paperwork was fraudulent (for example written by doctors who are family friends).
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    No, the problem was that airlines did not think they were allowed to examine the paperwork because ADA proponents told them it would violate the ADA to actually verify claims related to emotional support animals. (And in CA, lower-level courts have actually ruled to that effect.) The importance of the new rule is twofold: first, it lets the airlines know that it does not violate the ADA to restrict emotional support animals, and second, it permits airlines to require verification that an animal is actually required for support reasons, emotional or otherwise.
    - Ansil849 6y ago
      The paperwork was still required. So what exactly are you suggesting? That passengers forged medical paperwork en masse, knowing that airlines would not verify it? Is there evidence that this was happening anywhere?
neaanopri 6y ago
I completely agree with you, and I'm thinking of blind people and some people with epilepsy who have animals which can detect and manage their seizures.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  Those are still allowed.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Service dogs for blind people and people with epilepsy are covered by the ADA.
- fuzxi 6y ago
  Service animals like you described are not the same as emotional support animals, which are not trained to perform specific tasks or even necessarily to behave well in public. They're just regular animals that provide some psychological benefit to their owner.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dudul 6y ago
From https://adata.org/guide/service-animals-and-emotional-support-animals https://adata.org/guide/service-animals-and-emotional-suppor... "Emotional support animals, comfort animals, and therapy dogs are not service animals under Title II and Title III of the ADA. [...] It does not matter if a person has a note from a doctor that states that the person has a disability and needs to have the animal for emotional support. A doctor’s letter does not turn an animal into a service animal." This post is about emotional support animals, not service animals. Your animal, who's helping you feel better despite your phobia, is not a service animal. This is exactly because people keep blurring the line between these 2 different situations that airlines, restaurants and other businesses have to implement "a-hole policies".

Miner49er 6y ago

They didn't completely forbid the practice. Dogs are still allowed. How would they verify claims? Ask for a prescription or a note from a doctor or psychiatrist? EDIT: I'm wrong, only service dogs are allowed, so they need to be trained to do a specific task to help a person with a disability. But also, I'm pretty sure verication was already technically required. From AA's website, these forms are required: - Medical / Mental Health Professional Form - Veterinary Health Form, or vaccination record with current rabies vaccination information - Confirmation of Animal Behavior Form

paxys 6y ago
> How would they verify claims? Ask for a prescription or a note from a doctor or psychiatrist? Yes?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 1123581321 6y ago
  The regulations require neither of these things.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

adkadskhj 6y ago

It's also because there's a market for this even from people who aren't "trolling". Flying is difficult for pet owners, full stop. There really needs to be safe, affordable options for pet/dog owners to travel. As the horrible things airlines have done to pets makes it absolutely clear to many that we can't put our animals lives in the Airlines hands.

DeRock 6y ago
> There really needs to be safe, affordable options for pet/dog owners to travel. Why? Are you suggesting some form of subsidy? Transporting live animals is expensive, and pet ownership (let alone flying with them) is not a human right. If the market does not land on a safe and affordable option, then so be it, solely the pet owner should bare that cost.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > If the market does not land on a safe and affordable option, then so be it, solely the pet owner should bare that cost. Right now the problem for pet owners (of which I am one) is that there are no acceptable options, even at a significantly increased cost. Putting a pet in the luggage compartment is not acceptable, and airlines basically don't give you any other option unless your pet is small enough to fit in its carrier under your seat, which very few pets are. Airlines have options to support people traveling with infants and small children; similar options for people traveling with pets, even if they cost more, would be helpful.
  - DeRock 6y ago
    > Putting a pet in the luggage compartment is not acceptable, and airlines basically don't give you any other option Well, whats your suggestion then? If there was a better option, it feels like the airlines would have taken advantage of that opportunity. My guess is that the alternatives are too logistically/operationally expensive, and the pet owners aren't willing to bear that cost. > Airlines have options to support people traveling with infants and small children I see a lot of this sentiment in the comments, comparing infants and pets. One is essential to the continuation of our species. The other is a comfort, choice and privilege. It makes sense that our willingness to accept and subsidize is completely different between the two. You don't get a dependent tax deduction either, just because you have a dog.

gamblor956 6y ago

The problem is the desire to not devote resources to verifying the legitimacy of individual claims and instead banning the practice wholesale. Honestly, why make a mockery of this? Chastise people who are obviously trolling or scamming the system. It would have required a lot of resources to verify every individual claim and that would have raised prices for everyone. The burden of proof has been shifted to where it should always have been: on the person wanting to bring the animal.

Ansil849 6y ago
That burden of proof has already existed in the form of having to file the requisite paperwork including a letter from a doctor as well as a specific animal behavior form. It was not just a matter of claiming $random_animal is an emotional support animal. The problem appears to be that airlines ignored the requisite paperwork or the paperwork was fraudulent (for example written by doctors who are family friends).
- gamblor956 6y ago
  No, the problem was that airlines did not think they were allowed to examine the paperwork because ADA proponents told them it would violate the ADA to actually verify claims related to emotional support animals. (And in CA, lower-level courts have actually ruled to that effect.) The importance of the new rule is twofold: first, it lets the airlines know that it does not violate the ADA to restrict emotional support animals, and second, it permits airlines to require verification that an animal is actually required for support reasons, emotional or otherwise.
  - Ansil849 6y ago
    The paperwork was still required. So what exactly are you suggesting? That passengers forged medical paperwork en masse, knowing that airlines would not verify it? Is there evidence that this was happening anywhere?

neaanopri 6y ago

I completely agree with you, and I'm thinking of blind people and some people with epilepsy who have animals which can detect and manage their seizures.

Miner49er 6y ago
Those are still allowed.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
Service dogs for blind people and people with epilepsy are covered by the ADA.
fuzxi 6y ago
Service animals like you described are not the same as emotional support animals, which are not trained to perform specific tasks or even necessarily to behave well in public. They're just regular animals that provide some psychological benefit to their owner.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dudul 6y ago

From https://adata.org/guide/service-animals-and-emotional-support-animals https://adata.org/guide/service-animals-and-emotional-suppor... "Emotional support animals, comfort animals, and therapy dogs are not service animals under Title II and Title III of the ADA. [...] It does not matter if a person has a note from a doctor that states that the person has a disability and needs to have the animal for emotional support. A doctor’s letter does not turn an animal into a service animal." This post is about emotional support animals, not service animals. Your animal, who's helping you feel better despite your phobia, is not a service animal. This is exactly because people keep blurring the line between these 2 different situations that airlines, restaurants and other businesses have to implement "a-hole policies".