12 ms·

Pets Allowed: Why are so many animals now in places where they shouldn’t be?

176 points by wallflower 12y ago

cft 12y ago
because there are fewer and fewer children. http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/05/us-birth-rate-hits-all-time-low-total-fe http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/05/us-birth-rate-hits-all-tim...
- dghughes 12y ago
  >1.86 babies, well below the 2.1 needed for a stable population Should it not be 3 babies or over? Maybe my lack of statics knowledge is my problem. But if two parents have two kids that's zero population growth if they have three kids that means they've replaced themselves plus added one more person to create population growth.
  - dsymonds 12y ago
    "stable" here means zero population growth over the long term, which actually requires a little above 2 per couple to account for people who die before being old enough to parent children. 2.1 is the common approximation for that.
    - dghughes 12y ago
      I see what you mean stable versus growth I just assumed growth was needed to survive not just stability.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      But people live after they reproduce. Having 2 children, and every 2 in the next generation have 2 more, etc, means population continues to grow. A steady state is reached, but as lifespan increases so does population. The obvious limit is, if lifespan is infinite, then 0 children is the only number that permits a stable population.
      - TylerE 12y ago
        Eventually the older generations die. That stabalizes things.
      - baddox 12y ago
        The average human lifespan is a relatively fixed sized buffer. Since everyone who is born eventually dies, input matches output, and there's no population increase other than the average lifespan (and thus the buffer size) increasing.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    I don't understand your question. Stability and growth are different things. Not all couples need to have extra babies to have growth. Why did you bring up growth?
- dghughes 12y ago
  >1.86 babies, well below the 2.1 needed for a stable population Should it not be 3 babies or over? Maybe my lack of statics knowledge is my problem. But if two parents have two kids that's zero population growth if they have three kids that means they've replaced themselves plus added one more person to create population growth.
- alextgordon 12y ago
  I found the interview at the bottom of that article completely surreal. A couple of talking heads applying reason to question of whether the world has enough people or not (and apparently deciding that it doesn't have enough), when all they needed to do was buy a plane ticket to Bangladesh.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > when all they needed to do was buy a plane ticket to Bangladesh. As someone from Bangladesh, I have to say it's not quite so simple. Does the country need more people in general? No. Does it need more more parents to spend the time, money, and energy it takes to raise highly-educated kids that are going to be the backbone of the economy in a couple of decades, and to do that in Bangladesh instead of moving abroad? Absolutely!
- kghose 12y ago
  But net immigration into the US, so the population is actually increasing.
  - brc 12y ago
    The point is many people forego having children, and then keep dogs or cats to fill in their need for nurturing.
vmarsy 12y ago
tl;dr: Emotional-support animal (E.S.A.) are not allowed in places they shouldn't be. Exceptions are: >The rights of anyone who has such an animal are laid out in two laws. The Fair Housing Act says that you and your E.S.A. can live in housing that prohibits pets. The Air Carrier Access Act entitles you to fly with your E.S.A. at no extra charge, although airlines typically require the animal to stay on your lap or under the seat—this rules out emotional-support rhinoceroses. Both acts stipulate that you must have a corroborating letter from a health professional. So anywhere else these animals are it is not legal. It is different for service dogs that are trained for a specific purpose (i.e. blind people's dog) > They defend the practice by saying [...] that Europeans gladly accept dogs everywhere. I'd love to see them trying it in Europe :) However, here in the US I've never seen animals in uncommon places, is it really a trend ?
- mc32 12y ago
  Somewhere someone mentioned that normal pets are not allowed on planes unless you pay more but if you get your pet labeled emotional support then its free AND they mentioned getting that classification is easy and people abuse it to get a break...
  - gamegoblin 12y ago
    I was recently on a flight from Chicago to Seattle with a chihuahua on someone's lap a few rows in front of me that yapped in long stretches for the entire flight. Far, far worse than any child screaming.
    - servicepups 12y ago
      Yup, but they are allowed regardless. Only difference is with an ESA certificate the airline didn't make $125. A 'pain in the ass' tax that's levied on noisy people, dogs, and children and paid in a sliding scale to the people around them would be great.
  - vmarsy 12y ago
    ... this is just sad to abuse it like this. I feel sad for people who _really_ needs their animals for this particular reason. Some people are allergic to some type of animals though, how do you handle that? If I happen to sit next to a pet owner, can I claim that I'm allergic to it and this is a threat to my well being?
curiouscats 12y ago
It is sad how we allow rude people to get away with selfish behavior and make life for difficult for everyone else. Doing so encourages rude people to be even more selfish and we get the kind of behavior you see discussed in the article. Addressing the issues directly is often challenging. That is my guess on why we allow degenerate behavior to impose costs on others until it reaches epidemic proportions when we finally attempt to address it. It also encourages people to isolate themselves in enclaves where people that share certain expectations of behavior can shut out others and deal with those that are at least somewhat considerate of whatever behaviors the group cares about. Allowing the rudest people to abuse society degrades the public square and tears at the benefits that can strengthen the social contract. Sadly it seems to be a pretty dominate trait in our society these last few decades and it seems likely to just keep getting worse. Hopefully I am wrong.
- wozniacki 12y ago
  It also encourages people to isolate themselves in enclaves where people that share certain expectations of behavior can shut out others and deal with those that are at least somewhat considerate of whatever behaviors the group cares about. This. Yes. Hat tip. It isn't even the slight bit humorous anymore how much of these kind of exclusionary tactics play out in those "communities" that cry gentrification at the slightest degree of outsider intrusion, into their "districts" where certain unspoken rules of law evasion, creative law-flouting and outright prejudicially illegal behavior are propped up by the ingroup [1] members. This is precisely why I am not very empathetic to cries of gentrification, in places like SF. With these communities, it is most often not a debate of economic displacement but one of selective self-imposed seclusion. Simply put, they don't want you there not because you are economically displacing them and thereby a threat. They don't want you in their cafes, their bars, their parks and stores just because you are not like them. I resist elaborating for it should resemble a rant. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups
  - baddox 12y ago
    I'm not so sure that self-imposed cultural isolation is such a bad thing, at least inherently. It seems like a potentially better way for global society to support an extremely wide range of cultural norms than for every set of norms to be distributed evenly and tons of effort spent futilely teaching people to be "tolerant."
smsm42 12y ago
If so many animal companions visit places where they weren't allowed before, and the fabric of the society shows no signs of collapse, maybe the problem is not "cheating" but overabundance of restrictions? Maybe people are afraid of other people's pets out of ignorance and lifting the veil of ignorance is a good thing? There are, of course, bad apples - as there are among people. In a restaurant I'd be more worried about a waiter not washing their hands after visiting bathroom (the fact that there are placards saying they ABSOLUTELY MUST DO IT everywhere is kind of unnerving - if they insist on it so much is it the case that one reminder at the start of the employment is not enough?) than about the quiet dog under the table on the other end of the room. There are also things like poorly trained dog doing "what the dogs do" in the airplane, and the owner not thinking about dog's needs on a 5-hour flight. There are also sanitary and other concerns - e.g. in some places, it is clearly not appropriate to come with animals (most of these places, though, are not exactly open to public either). But I see no problem for a well-behaved dog (or other like animal, of course bengal tigers require an exception here) to accompany its owner to a restaurant or similar establishment - provided they don't smell offensively, shed, make loud noise or otherwise disturb people. Of course, the responsibility should be on the owner and if the companion pet misbehaves or makes trouble, they both should be out, but as a consequence of a problem, not as a pre-determined conclusion. Our family has pets and I have witnessed how many establishments view pets negatively - e.g. renting with a pet is a constant problem since many landlords, both private and corporate, want nothing to do with it. I understand why it may be (bad apples) but in my case it was just ignorance and refusal to consider even the possibility that it would be OK. So, I personally take an issue with the author conclusion that the only sensible thing for a person with a pet is to "get lost". I think most people she encountered actually did the sensible thing and accommodated their fellow human being and her companion, however weird it may seem. And I'm sure it didn't require any extraordinary effort, extraordinary cost or major inconvenience - just being ready to tolerate something that is a bit unusual.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  "and the fabric of the society shows no signs of collapse" That's a remarkably high bar to not do something!
SwellJoe 12y ago
I almost never mind as long as they are well-behaved. Just like kids. If your dog or your kid is making noise and stinking up the place, I don't much like it. Otherwise, why would I care? They're cute and funny (dogs moreso than kids), and they have shared human spaces for thousands of years. I purposely live in places that are pretty lax about stuff like that, and one of the things I liked least about Silicon Valley is how horribly dog-hostile the housing market there is, though once you've got housing, there are, at least a few patio-equipped restaurants and coffee shops that are dog-friendly (not on par with an actual dog-friendly city like Austin, but liveable).
- ssully 12y ago
  I am not sure if you read the article, but it goes far beyond dogs. It's about people abusing the concept of an emotional service animal. People do it to get their pets to fly free as well as other things. The main portion of the article is about the author seeing how far she can go by claiming random animals are ESA's for her. She used turtles, snakes, pigs, alpacas and a few others successfully. I am a dog lover. I own one dog and plan to adopt more in the future. But it's pretty ridiculous that people take advantage of this. Not everyone is a dog person, let alone comfortable with the number of animals this women used as ESA pets. It's unfortunate that there are actually people at such a state emotionally where they don't want to leave the house unaccompanied by their pets, but it's not exactly fair for everyone else who now has to potentially put up with their animal.
  - servicepups 12y ago
    I think at the end of the day it should be about discretion. A store should be able to say "oh sure, Fido is awesome" and "uh, no, he ate my childs arm last time, fuck off Marty" without any worries. Banning animals in places that serve food city wide is quite silly. Let the stores set their own rules. I'd love a coworking cafe that charged by the hour and let my dog run around.
    - ssully 12y ago
      I agree completely! Widespread ban is silly, but so is a certificate that allows people to basically bring their animals where ever they want. I have been to plenty of stores and restaurants that are dog friendly(some go so far as to have water bowls and treats around the establishment for them). It's neat and people going there know exactly what they are getting into. If I was at a movie theater and someone has a dog that freaks the fuck out every time there is ambient animal noise in a scene then I am not going to be happy. I have no expectations of any animals being at my local AMC theater, I don't see why a $200 dollar certificate allows that.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- ssully 12y ago
  Agreed. I think she found something worth exploring, but went about it in the worst way possible.
servicepups 12y ago
Confession time. I have an Emotional Support Dog that flies with me for free. The certificate cost $250 per year (or rather, the airlines require a prescription letter dated within 1 year of your flight). I obtained it without lying. I answered every questions honestly, though I am capable of flying without my dog. Yes, I have anxiety, like any person. Yes, my dog makes me feel better, like (I assume) anyone with a dog. Boom, certificate. Technically this means I can bring my dog literally anywhere, but I only use it for flying. When on the train, the dog resides in a backpack that meets the "carrier" qualification. I don't take her in restaurants or movie theaters like a huge douche. Why do I think it's OK? Well, it's a long list. First, the airlines will not allow dogs over 17 pounds as carry-on, even in a carrier. They won't let you buy an additional seat for the dog, even in a carrier. 18lbs = under the plane. 2 hours early, dog fucking terrified, so you probably have to Benadryl the pup, and they've been known to freeze to death under there. Nope Nope Nope. This all makes no sense. If I buy a second seat, the size of the dog should not matter. Tiny dog in carrier is just as loud as big dog in carrier. Toddlers fly for free and scream like fucking maniacs. 5 year olds buy a seat and scream and play iPad games on full volume. My dog sits underneath the seat in front of me and doesn't move. I've had a 2 hour flight where people in my row did not know a dog was on the plane until we got off. My dog's extremely well trained. She doesn't have breakfast on flight days, and I feed her a few ice cubes so she isn't crazy thirsty the whole trip. No chance of a mid-aisle poop, any more so than the old lady two rows up might. She doesn't bark, etc. I do get that it's hard to have rules such as "your dog can fly with you if they aren't a huge fucking pain". Two years ago tons of dogs were flying for free. Now you have to pay an extra $50 to have your doctor answer calls from the airline to confirm, and it's back down to where I rarely see another dog in the airport.
- anthracis417 12y ago
  |Technically this means I can bring my dog literally anywhere Doesn't the article specifically state the law only allows keeping an ESA in a residence that doesn't otherwise allow animals, and flying with them for free? The author explicitly states emotional support animals do not have the same rights as service animals, and you cannot bring your dog anywhere. People are just lead to believe so.
- 12y ago
cpkpad 12y ago
As someone with both allergies and a child with life-threatening allergies, I have noticed this trend and find it disturbing. There are stores I cannot go to anymore because of this sh*t. That's about 5% of the population and rising.
kendallpark 12y ago
Unlike the Emotional Support Animals, service animals have to undergo a large amount of training and certification in order to be considered as such. This ensures that they are well behaved in situations where animals would not normally be allowed (like airplanes). This is very unfortunate for those with disabilities that really do need service animals. I'd put the ESA-abusers in the same class of people that use their relative's handicapped parking permit to get a better parking spot. EDIT: Furthermore, there are only two species of animals that can be recognized as a service animal: dogs and miniature horses. There doesn't seem to be a species restriction on ESAs.
- servicepups 12y ago
  There are a limited number of handicapped spots. Not so with ESA dogs. Though, I'm very very careful to make sure mine isn't a pain in the ass, and not everyone goes to such lengths.
  - kendallpark 12y ago
    I understand that the analogy is not entirely symmetrical. That being said, it wouldn't work if everyone exploited this loophole. And I think that the author--as brash as she was--shows how far this can be exploited. What's to keep someone with an poorly behaving ESA dog from boarding an airplane? Nothing.
  - stolio 12y ago
    False. Society has a certain amount of patience for people taking their dogs everywhere, it's not unlimited. Not everybody likes dogs, some people have had traumatic experiences, some people are allergic, there are health codes to worry about, etc. The more people take their ESA's around, which inevitably causes problems, the lower that level of patience becomes. I'm all for ESA advocates getting together and coming up with a system to regulate them and ensure it's low impact, but printing off certificates from the internet isn't going to cut it.
cm2012 12y ago
My god, the author comes as annoying. Something about the voice, whether it's pretentiousness or condescension, grates at my brain.
DAddYE 12y ago
Dog owner and cat owner here (I love them!) but my question is, why do we needs pets at all? Is it right to put a bird in a cage or a cat in a small apt or having a dog and bring him out just 3 times a day? Why we are so selfish to prevent birds from flying or cats from hunting? Should we rethink in general about the pet in general?
- enneff 12y ago
  Certainly, yes. Most people don't treat their pets properly. If you have a dog you should have it with you all the time; they're pack animals and get anxious and neurotic when left alone. This means there are very few lifestyles that lend themselves to dog ownership. Farmers tend to make great dog owners, because the dog is fully integrated with the lifestyle. The social problem is that a lot of pet owners conflate the needs of their pet with their own personal rights. "I own a dog," and "Dogs need to be with their owners," therefore "I should be able to take my dog with me everywhere." No, you should have to stay with your dog in an appropriate environment. If you don't live in such an environment, don't own a dog.
  - ryanjshaw 12y ago
    > they're pack animals and get anxious and neurotic when left alone. Get a second dog. > No, you should have to stay with your dog in an appropriate environment. If you don't live in such an environment, don't own a dog. How do you know dogs prefer to be put down than occasionally left to chill home alone?
    - enneff 12y ago
      The alternative is not putting them down, but rather to stop breeding them. Also "occasionally left home to chill" does not describe a typical domestic dog's life. More like "left at home all day, five days a week."
      - lazythrowaway 12y ago
        Dogs breed themselves just fine - ever been to a shelter?
stolio 12y ago
For reference it costs about $25,000 over a period of 6 to 9 months to train a service dog. If you see somebody with a service dog it's because they absolutely need it. There are waiting lists, background checks, interviews, even the owners themselves are trained. There is nothing in the process of getting a service dog that is taken lightly. EDIT: 6-9 months may be on the low side for training a service dog. This place does 9-12 months not including the initial physical/behavioral testing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Service_Dogs#Training http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Service_Dogs#Training
- ryen 12y ago
  Are you referring to service dogs that help the blind? Or those that offer emotional support? Clearly there is a difference in training.
  - stolio 12y ago
    I'm referring to service dogs for severe disabilities: multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, traumatic injuries from war, things like that. The "Emotional Support Animals" referenced in the article certainly are not receiving the training of a full-blown service dog.
  - briandear 12y ago
    An emotional support animal is NOT a service animal. There's a huge difference. There are not any legal requirements for emotional support animals. A parrot can be considered an emotional support animal. A service animal is a highly trained animal, while an emotional support animal is anything you say it is.
  - mbrameld 12y ago
    As others have said, ESAs can be any animal type, but business are not legally obligated to accommodate ESAs. Only dogs (and in some limited cases miniature horses) can be service animals in the US. A service animal may be an ESA, but not all ESAs are service animals. Also, the ADA specifically states that "Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.".
wooster 12y ago
Awhile back I was chatting with one of my friends who was working security at the local Whole Foods, when a woman walked by the produce section literally dragging her defecating dog through a pile of its own crap. This is why pets aren't allowed in grocery stores. Yesterday, I counted 5 dogs inside another local grocery store. Some of them may have been legitimate emotional support dogs (although none of them appeared to be service dogs), but surely the others were just people behaving badly.
swatow 12y ago
The key point here is that the government forces businesses to accommodate Emotional Support Animals through the Fair Housing Act, the Air Carrier Access Act and the Americans with Disability Act. This is not an issue of modern society not being able to control assholes. It is a matter of government legislation intended to protect the rights of disabled people, being (allegedly) misused. The difficulty in drawing this line directly brings into question whether the government should be forcing businesses to accommodate people with disabilities.
- mwfunk 12y ago
  IMO the difficulty in drawing the line suggests that the existing laws aren't quite there yet and some refinement is probably needed. I'm sure that sounds like a really boring, milquetoast opinion to a lot of people but that makes a lot more sense to me than using ambiguous or annoying ESA laws as Exhibit A for why the government shouldn't be allowed to force businesses to accommodate the disabled.
  - swatow 12y ago
    Are you really disagreeing with me? I simply read an article, and noted that the real issue was the government intervention, not private businesses inability to make good judgments, or individuals lack of restraint in assholish behavior. I didn't list this as "Exhibit A" I just noted that if we're talking about this article, this is the main issue.
    - jrock08 12y ago
      The problem with a "screw the government intervention" mindset is that wheelchair bound people make up a significant minority, so I won't say no one, but a vanishingly small number of businesses would care if they moved to a non-ADA compliant building. To be a bit flip, playhouses and theaters with their generally elderly patrons, and wheelchair stores are the only ones I can think of. So yes, this is a place that government intervention is necessary. Specifically, if you look at many old buildings built pre-ADA (1990) you'll find a disturbing lack of accessibility. It's worth discussing whether the government should ban dogs from businesses that serve food. And it's worth discussing whether the regulations which essentially prevent businesses from validating a service animals papers (so to speak) should be relaxed. However, it seems that it's really a lack of understanding of the law when it comes to the difference between a trained service animal and a companion animal, not horrible government intervention.
gojomo 12y ago
SFWeekly covered the similar proliferation of 'support animals' in San Francisco back in 2009: http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/service-with-a-snarl/Content?oid=2172980&showFullText=true http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/service-with-a-snarl/Co...
wyager 12y ago
Another example of well-intentioned laws (the ADA and associated acts, in this case) having unfortunate semi-predictable side effects. When you muddy the legal waters, you make it very difficult for your average Joe, who has no legal training, to protect themselves from legal abuses like those demonstrated in the article. You're not going to stand up to assholes if you're afraid you might get sued for discrimination.
pakled_engineer 12y ago
I hate the now common occurance of the store and office dog, which is always a yapping tiny viscious ball of fur that immediately runs at you barking when you walk in. Leave precious at home so I can negotiate a sale without the sound of endless barking drowning out our conversation. Get a big fat store kitty and buddy will lie in the window all day quietly if you must surround yourself in animals. I also didn't realize how much people from the middle east despise dogs, there's stores some of my Kuwaiti and Saudi friends won't go into because theres a dog running around, and they consider dogs unclean barn animals. They won't even go into a coffee shop if somebody is in the line with a dog as they expect that place is unhygienic.
littletimmy 12y ago
To look at this from the perspective of animal owners: animals are not "pets" to them, they're family. To deny them bringing a dog in an airplane is like denying them bringing a baby in a airplane. That argument cannot be randomly disregarded because it is a valid one. Dogs bark, babies cry. Dogs are unhygenic, and babies are little balls of filth. Why should a dog fly in cargo because you don't like a dog inside the airplane? I don't like babies, does that mean we should put babies in a crate in the cargo section?
- tdkl 12y ago
  Pets != humans. There is no other perspective.
  - littletimmy 12y ago
    Why are you convinced that your perspective is The perspective?
    - icelancer 12y ago
      Biology isn't a perspective. Well, not yet anyway. We haven't gone that idiotic as a society so far.
  - Kiro 12y ago
    How does it feel to be so cold-hearted?
  - JimmyM 12y ago
    Yes there is. http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/Singer.pdf http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/Singer.pdf
    - NhanH 12y ago
      Did you read the paper? Because the paper doesn't contradict the claims that "Pets != humans". The argument that the paper made, and I quote "I argue that we should drop the belief in the equal value of human life, replacing it with a graduated view that applies to animals as well as to humans.", emphasize the first half of the sentence (sidenote: the claim shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that know about Singer's utilitarian stance, he's super consistent in being an utilitarian :-) ). He isn't saying that pets is equal to human in moral status, he's saying that the difference shouldn't be explained just by species.
tdkl 12y ago
> emotional-support animals As an European: wat ?
- briandear 12y ago
  Exactly. If I go to the local tabac/bar/newsstand and proclaim that I need an emotional support animal, I'd be laughed out of the country. Or, more likely, they'd pour me a Pastis and tell me to find a woman.
tallanvor 12y ago
I look at this from a slightly different perspective... Why shouldn't animals (mainly dogs, really) be allowed in many of these places, assuming they are well behaved? When I lived in the UK, you would often see a dog or two in pubs or outside areas of restaurants. Even occasionally in the grocery store (they were smaller ones, though, and always in a cart). There was never any commotion over them. In Norway, dogs aren't even allowed in the outdoor area of restaurants unless the waiters are willing to look the other way. The same goes for pharmacies and grocery stores (some grocery stores look the other way if you are carrying the dog). The explanation is always that the Norwegian food authority (which also has jurisdiction over pets, for some odd reason) bans them because people might have allergies. I think Norway is an example of taking things way too far. Why not allow the shop owners to decide for themselves whether they are more interested in catering to dog owners or people who might be allergic? People with allergies have to worry no matter what, because a service dog is still allowed in, so they have no guarantee of not encountering a dog, and if they have a severe allergy, the dog hair on my clothes could be enough to set off an allergy attack (if it isn't, my dog probably won't cause the person any problems unless she jumps on them, which I always do my best to prevent). In the end, people need to stop abusing the system, but the system needs to be relaxed to allow more flexibility.
- eloisant 12y ago
  Unfortunately it seems that, especially in US, most problems end up an "us vs them" problem. People pick sides and do whatever it takes to win battles. For example I'm baffled to know that in US, some "pet forbidden" apartment buildings exist. Come on, people not allowed to have pets at their own house??
  - JimmyM 12y ago
    This is also the case in the UK. Here in the UK, in general (I don't know about the US), renting a property allows you the right to just about live there, grudgingly, and it is definitely NOT your house or home. This is true more of the lower end of the market than the higher.
    - 12y ago
neuronic 12y ago
Just made an account to reply. I have absolutely nothing against dogs or other pets whatsoever. Sometimes I expect to be sitting in the library or in a cafe, usually a confined place, for a while. To do some work or chat with a friend etc. The issue is, I am extremely allergic against dogs (only horses are worse but I hope nobody will bring a horse into my go-to cafe). So now somebody enters with their dog, lets it run around freely (!) and I have nowhere to go. Dogs are about the only things that reliably induce allergic asthma in me if exposure time is > 1 hour. So thankfully that rarely happens. But I get immediate massive hayfever symptoms. Sneezing 8 times in a row, runny nose like there is no tomorrow, itchy eyes, all that jazz. I find it irresponsible of people to bring their pets into confined public spaces such as cafes and even more so of the owners to allow it. I like dogs a lot, sadly I cannot own one. But please don't bring it into a place like that for more than a few minutes. That's just my perspective. Same reason I hate subway musicians btw. I mean the one inside the trains. You can't get away from them. You are forced to listen to them. Playing on the street? Ok with me, I can keep walking. But doing it in the train is rude beyond anything and I don understand why people put up with it.
gadders 12y ago
I can't even believe Emotional Support Animals are a thing. People are so feeble. To paraphase the saying, we will go out not with a bang but with a whimper, when people have their ESA animal taken away from them.
cafard 12y ago
Most interesting. I know a fellow who works in retail, and has done so for many years. I remember from a brief bit of conversation a couple of years ago that he must have been unclear on the distinction between service animals and emotional support animals.

176 points by wallflower 12y ago

cft 12y ago

because there are fewer and fewer children. http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/05/us-birth-rate-hits-all-time-low-total-fe http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/05/us-birth-rate-hits-all-tim...

dghughes 12y ago
>1.86 babies, well below the 2.1 needed for a stable population Should it not be 3 babies or over? Maybe my lack of statics knowledge is my problem. But if two parents have two kids that's zero population growth if they have three kids that means they've replaced themselves plus added one more person to create population growth.
- dsymonds 12y ago
  "stable" here means zero population growth over the long term, which actually requires a little above 2 per couple to account for people who die before being old enough to parent children. 2.1 is the common approximation for that.
  - dghughes 12y ago
    I see what you mean stable versus growth I just assumed growth was needed to survive not just stability.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    But people live after they reproduce. Having 2 children, and every 2 in the next generation have 2 more, etc, means population continues to grow. A steady state is reached, but as lifespan increases so does population. The obvious limit is, if lifespan is infinite, then 0 children is the only number that permits a stable population.
    - TylerE 12y ago
      Eventually the older generations die. That stabalizes things.
    - baddox 12y ago
      The average human lifespan is a relatively fixed sized buffer. Since everyone who is born eventually dies, input matches output, and there's no population increase other than the average lifespan (and thus the buffer size) increasing.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  I don't understand your question. Stability and growth are different things. Not all couples need to have extra babies to have growth. Why did you bring up growth?
dghughes 12y ago
>1.86 babies, well below the 2.1 needed for a stable population Should it not be 3 babies or over? Maybe my lack of statics knowledge is my problem. But if two parents have two kids that's zero population growth if they have three kids that means they've replaced themselves plus added one more person to create population growth.
alextgordon 12y ago
I found the interview at the bottom of that article completely surreal. A couple of talking heads applying reason to question of whether the world has enough people or not (and apparently deciding that it doesn't have enough), when all they needed to do was buy a plane ticket to Bangladesh.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > when all they needed to do was buy a plane ticket to Bangladesh. As someone from Bangladesh, I have to say it's not quite so simple. Does the country need more people in general? No. Does it need more more parents to spend the time, money, and energy it takes to raise highly-educated kids that are going to be the backbone of the economy in a couple of decades, and to do that in Bangladesh instead of moving abroad? Absolutely!
kghose 12y ago
But net immigration into the US, so the population is actually increasing.
- brc 12y ago
  The point is many people forego having children, and then keep dogs or cats to fill in their need for nurturing.

vmarsy 12y ago

tl;dr: Emotional-support animal (E.S.A.) are not allowed in places they shouldn't be. Exceptions are: >The rights of anyone who has such an animal are laid out in two laws. The Fair Housing Act says that you and your E.S.A. can live in housing that prohibits pets. The Air Carrier Access Act entitles you to fly with your E.S.A. at no extra charge, although airlines typically require the animal to stay on your lap or under the seat—this rules out emotional-support rhinoceroses. Both acts stipulate that you must have a corroborating letter from a health professional. So anywhere else these animals are it is not legal. It is different for service dogs that are trained for a specific purpose (i.e. blind people's dog) > They defend the practice by saying [...] that Europeans gladly accept dogs everywhere. I'd love to see them trying it in Europe :) However, here in the US I've never seen animals in uncommon places, is it really a trend ?

mc32 12y ago
Somewhere someone mentioned that normal pets are not allowed on planes unless you pay more but if you get your pet labeled emotional support then its free AND they mentioned getting that classification is easy and people abuse it to get a break...
- gamegoblin 12y ago
  I was recently on a flight from Chicago to Seattle with a chihuahua on someone's lap a few rows in front of me that yapped in long stretches for the entire flight. Far, far worse than any child screaming.
  - servicepups 12y ago
    Yup, but they are allowed regardless. Only difference is with an ESA certificate the airline didn't make $125. A 'pain in the ass' tax that's levied on noisy people, dogs, and children and paid in a sliding scale to the people around them would be great.
- vmarsy 12y ago
  ... this is just sad to abuse it like this. I feel sad for people who _really_ needs their animals for this particular reason. Some people are allergic to some type of animals though, how do you handle that? If I happen to sit next to a pet owner, can I claim that I'm allergic to it and this is a threat to my well being?

curiouscats 12y ago

It is sad how we allow rude people to get away with selfish behavior and make life for difficult for everyone else. Doing so encourages rude people to be even more selfish and we get the kind of behavior you see discussed in the article. Addressing the issues directly is often challenging. That is my guess on why we allow degenerate behavior to impose costs on others until it reaches epidemic proportions when we finally attempt to address it. It also encourages people to isolate themselves in enclaves where people that share certain expectations of behavior can shut out others and deal with those that are at least somewhat considerate of whatever behaviors the group cares about. Allowing the rudest people to abuse society degrades the public square and tears at the benefits that can strengthen the social contract. Sadly it seems to be a pretty dominate trait in our society these last few decades and it seems likely to just keep getting worse. Hopefully I am wrong.

wozniacki 12y ago
It also encourages people to isolate themselves in enclaves where people that share certain expectations of behavior can shut out others and deal with those that are at least somewhat considerate of whatever behaviors the group cares about. This. Yes. Hat tip. It isn't even the slight bit humorous anymore how much of these kind of exclusionary tactics play out in those "communities" that cry gentrification at the slightest degree of outsider intrusion, into their "districts" where certain unspoken rules of law evasion, creative law-flouting and outright prejudicially illegal behavior are propped up by the ingroup [1] members. This is precisely why I am not very empathetic to cries of gentrification, in places like SF. With these communities, it is most often not a debate of economic displacement but one of selective self-imposed seclusion. Simply put, they don't want you there not because you are economically displacing them and thereby a threat. They don't want you in their cafes, their bars, their parks and stores just because you are not like them. I resist elaborating for it should resemble a rant. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups
- baddox 12y ago
  I'm not so sure that self-imposed cultural isolation is such a bad thing, at least inherently. It seems like a potentially better way for global society to support an extremely wide range of cultural norms than for every set of norms to be distributed evenly and tons of effort spent futilely teaching people to be "tolerant."

smsm42 12y ago

If so many animal companions visit places where they weren't allowed before, and the fabric of the society shows no signs of collapse, maybe the problem is not "cheating" but overabundance of restrictions? Maybe people are afraid of other people's pets out of ignorance and lifting the veil of ignorance is a good thing? There are, of course, bad apples - as there are among people. In a restaurant I'd be more worried about a waiter not washing their hands after visiting bathroom (the fact that there are placards saying they ABSOLUTELY MUST DO IT everywhere is kind of unnerving - if they insist on it so much is it the case that one reminder at the start of the employment is not enough?) than about the quiet dog under the table on the other end of the room. There are also things like poorly trained dog doing "what the dogs do" in the airplane, and the owner not thinking about dog's needs on a 5-hour flight. There are also sanitary and other concerns - e.g. in some places, it is clearly not appropriate to come with animals (most of these places, though, are not exactly open to public either). But I see no problem for a well-behaved dog (or other like animal, of course bengal tigers require an exception here) to accompany its owner to a restaurant or similar establishment - provided they don't smell offensively, shed, make loud noise or otherwise disturb people. Of course, the responsibility should be on the owner and if the companion pet misbehaves or makes trouble, they both should be out, but as a consequence of a problem, not as a pre-determined conclusion. Our family has pets and I have witnessed how many establishments view pets negatively - e.g. renting with a pet is a constant problem since many landlords, both private and corporate, want nothing to do with it. I understand why it may be (bad apples) but in my case it was just ignorance and refusal to consider even the possibility that it would be OK. So, I personally take an issue with the author conclusion that the only sensible thing for a person with a pet is to "get lost". I think most people she encountered actually did the sensible thing and accommodated their fellow human being and her companion, however weird it may seem. And I'm sure it didn't require any extraordinary effort, extraordinary cost or major inconvenience - just being ready to tolerate something that is a bit unusual.

forrestthewoods 12y ago
"and the fabric of the society shows no signs of collapse" That's a remarkably high bar to not do something!

SwellJoe 12y ago

I almost never mind as long as they are well-behaved. Just like kids. If your dog or your kid is making noise and stinking up the place, I don't much like it. Otherwise, why would I care? They're cute and funny (dogs moreso than kids), and they have shared human spaces for thousands of years. I purposely live in places that are pretty lax about stuff like that, and one of the things I liked least about Silicon Valley is how horribly dog-hostile the housing market there is, though once you've got housing, there are, at least a few patio-equipped restaurants and coffee shops that are dog-friendly (not on par with an actual dog-friendly city like Austin, but liveable).

ssully 12y ago
I am not sure if you read the article, but it goes far beyond dogs. It's about people abusing the concept of an emotional service animal. People do it to get their pets to fly free as well as other things. The main portion of the article is about the author seeing how far she can go by claiming random animals are ESA's for her. She used turtles, snakes, pigs, alpacas and a few others successfully. I am a dog lover. I own one dog and plan to adopt more in the future. But it's pretty ridiculous that people take advantage of this. Not everyone is a dog person, let alone comfortable with the number of animals this women used as ESA pets. It's unfortunate that there are actually people at such a state emotionally where they don't want to leave the house unaccompanied by their pets, but it's not exactly fair for everyone else who now has to potentially put up with their animal.
- servicepups 12y ago
  I think at the end of the day it should be about discretion. A store should be able to say "oh sure, Fido is awesome" and "uh, no, he ate my childs arm last time, fuck off Marty" without any worries. Banning animals in places that serve food city wide is quite silly. Let the stores set their own rules. I'd love a coworking cafe that charged by the hour and let my dog run around.
  - ssully 12y ago
    I agree completely! Widespread ban is silly, but so is a certificate that allows people to basically bring their animals where ever they want. I have been to plenty of stores and restaurants that are dog friendly(some go so far as to have water bowls and treats around the establishment for them). It's neat and people going there know exactly what they are getting into. If I was at a movie theater and someone has a dog that freaks the fuck out every time there is ambient animal noise in a scene then I am not going to be happy. I have no expectations of any animals being at my local AMC theater, I don't see why a $200 dollar certificate allows that.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ssully 12y ago
Agreed. I think she found something worth exploring, but went about it in the worst way possible.

servicepups 12y ago

Confession time. I have an Emotional Support Dog that flies with me for free. The certificate cost $250 per year (or rather, the airlines require a prescription letter dated within 1 year of your flight). I obtained it without lying. I answered every questions honestly, though I am capable of flying without my dog. Yes, I have anxiety, like any person. Yes, my dog makes me feel better, like (I assume) anyone with a dog. Boom, certificate. Technically this means I can bring my dog literally anywhere, but I only use it for flying. When on the train, the dog resides in a backpack that meets the "carrier" qualification. I don't take her in restaurants or movie theaters like a huge douche. Why do I think it's OK? Well, it's a long list. First, the airlines will not allow dogs over 17 pounds as carry-on, even in a carrier. They won't let you buy an additional seat for the dog, even in a carrier. 18lbs = under the plane. 2 hours early, dog fucking terrified, so you probably have to Benadryl the pup, and they've been known to freeze to death under there. Nope Nope Nope. This all makes no sense. If I buy a second seat, the size of the dog should not matter. Tiny dog in carrier is just as loud as big dog in carrier. Toddlers fly for free and scream like fucking maniacs. 5 year olds buy a seat and scream and play iPad games on full volume. My dog sits underneath the seat in front of me and doesn't move. I've had a 2 hour flight where people in my row did not know a dog was on the plane until we got off. My dog's extremely well trained. She doesn't have breakfast on flight days, and I feed her a few ice cubes so she isn't crazy thirsty the whole trip. No chance of a mid-aisle poop, any more so than the old lady two rows up might. She doesn't bark, etc. I do get that it's hard to have rules such as "your dog can fly with you if they aren't a huge fucking pain". Two years ago tons of dogs were flying for free. Now you have to pay an extra $50 to have your doctor answer calls from the airline to confirm, and it's back down to where I rarely see another dog in the airport.

anthracis417 12y ago
|Technically this means I can bring my dog literally anywhere Doesn't the article specifically state the law only allows keeping an ESA in a residence that doesn't otherwise allow animals, and flying with them for free? The author explicitly states emotional support animals do not have the same rights as service animals, and you cannot bring your dog anywhere. People are just lead to believe so.
12y ago

cpkpad 12y ago

As someone with both allergies and a child with life-threatening allergies, I have noticed this trend and find it disturbing. There are stores I cannot go to anymore because of this sh*t. That's about 5% of the population and rising.

kendallpark 12y ago

Unlike the Emotional Support Animals, service animals have to undergo a large amount of training and certification in order to be considered as such. This ensures that they are well behaved in situations where animals would not normally be allowed (like airplanes). This is very unfortunate for those with disabilities that really do need service animals. I'd put the ESA-abusers in the same class of people that use their relative's handicapped parking permit to get a better parking spot. EDIT: Furthermore, there are only two species of animals that can be recognized as a service animal: dogs and miniature horses. There doesn't seem to be a species restriction on ESAs.

servicepups 12y ago
There are a limited number of handicapped spots. Not so with ESA dogs. Though, I'm very very careful to make sure mine isn't a pain in the ass, and not everyone goes to such lengths.
- kendallpark 12y ago
  I understand that the analogy is not entirely symmetrical. That being said, it wouldn't work if everyone exploited this loophole. And I think that the author--as brash as she was--shows how far this can be exploited. What's to keep someone with an poorly behaving ESA dog from boarding an airplane? Nothing.
- stolio 12y ago
  False. Society has a certain amount of patience for people taking their dogs everywhere, it's not unlimited. Not everybody likes dogs, some people have had traumatic experiences, some people are allergic, there are health codes to worry about, etc. The more people take their ESA's around, which inevitably causes problems, the lower that level of patience becomes. I'm all for ESA advocates getting together and coming up with a system to regulate them and ensure it's low impact, but printing off certificates from the internet isn't going to cut it.

cm2012 12y ago

My god, the author comes as annoying. Something about the voice, whether it's pretentiousness or condescension, grates at my brain.

DAddYE 12y ago

Dog owner and cat owner here (I love them!) but my question is, why do we needs pets at all? Is it right to put a bird in a cage or a cat in a small apt or having a dog and bring him out just 3 times a day? Why we are so selfish to prevent birds from flying or cats from hunting? Should we rethink in general about the pet in general?

enneff 12y ago
Certainly, yes. Most people don't treat their pets properly. If you have a dog you should have it with you all the time; they're pack animals and get anxious and neurotic when left alone. This means there are very few lifestyles that lend themselves to dog ownership. Farmers tend to make great dog owners, because the dog is fully integrated with the lifestyle. The social problem is that a lot of pet owners conflate the needs of their pet with their own personal rights. "I own a dog," and "Dogs need to be with their owners," therefore "I should be able to take my dog with me everywhere." No, you should have to stay with your dog in an appropriate environment. If you don't live in such an environment, don't own a dog.
- ryanjshaw 12y ago
  > they're pack animals and get anxious and neurotic when left alone. Get a second dog. > No, you should have to stay with your dog in an appropriate environment. If you don't live in such an environment, don't own a dog. How do you know dogs prefer to be put down than occasionally left to chill home alone?
  - enneff 12y ago
    The alternative is not putting them down, but rather to stop breeding them. Also "occasionally left home to chill" does not describe a typical domestic dog's life. More like "left at home all day, five days a week."
    - lazythrowaway 12y ago
      Dogs breed themselves just fine - ever been to a shelter?

stolio 12y ago

For reference it costs about $25,000 over a period of 6 to 9 months to train a service dog. If you see somebody with a service dog it's because they absolutely need it. There are waiting lists, background checks, interviews, even the owners themselves are trained. There is nothing in the process of getting a service dog that is taken lightly. EDIT: 6-9 months may be on the low side for training a service dog. This place does 9-12 months not including the initial physical/behavioral testing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Service_Dogs#Training http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Service_Dogs#Training

ryen 12y ago
Are you referring to service dogs that help the blind? Or those that offer emotional support? Clearly there is a difference in training.
- stolio 12y ago
  I'm referring to service dogs for severe disabilities: multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, traumatic injuries from war, things like that. The "Emotional Support Animals" referenced in the article certainly are not receiving the training of a full-blown service dog.
- briandear 12y ago
  An emotional support animal is NOT a service animal. There's a huge difference. There are not any legal requirements for emotional support animals. A parrot can be considered an emotional support animal. A service animal is a highly trained animal, while an emotional support animal is anything you say it is.
- mbrameld 12y ago
  As others have said, ESAs can be any animal type, but business are not legally obligated to accommodate ESAs. Only dogs (and in some limited cases miniature horses) can be service animals in the US. A service animal may be an ESA, but not all ESAs are service animals. Also, the ADA specifically states that "Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA.".

wooster 12y ago

Awhile back I was chatting with one of my friends who was working security at the local Whole Foods, when a woman walked by the produce section literally dragging her defecating dog through a pile of its own crap. This is why pets aren't allowed in grocery stores. Yesterday, I counted 5 dogs inside another local grocery store. Some of them may have been legitimate emotional support dogs (although none of them appeared to be service dogs), but surely the others were just people behaving badly.

swatow 12y ago

The key point here is that the government forces businesses to accommodate Emotional Support Animals through the Fair Housing Act, the Air Carrier Access Act and the Americans with Disability Act. This is not an issue of modern society not being able to control assholes. It is a matter of government legislation intended to protect the rights of disabled people, being (allegedly) misused. The difficulty in drawing this line directly brings into question whether the government should be forcing businesses to accommodate people with disabilities.

mwfunk 12y ago
IMO the difficulty in drawing the line suggests that the existing laws aren't quite there yet and some refinement is probably needed. I'm sure that sounds like a really boring, milquetoast opinion to a lot of people but that makes a lot more sense to me than using ambiguous or annoying ESA laws as Exhibit A for why the government shouldn't be allowed to force businesses to accommodate the disabled.
- swatow 12y ago
  Are you really disagreeing with me? I simply read an article, and noted that the real issue was the government intervention, not private businesses inability to make good judgments, or individuals lack of restraint in assholish behavior. I didn't list this as "Exhibit A" I just noted that if we're talking about this article, this is the main issue.
  - jrock08 12y ago
    The problem with a "screw the government intervention" mindset is that wheelchair bound people make up a significant minority, so I won't say no one, but a vanishingly small number of businesses would care if they moved to a non-ADA compliant building. To be a bit flip, playhouses and theaters with their generally elderly patrons, and wheelchair stores are the only ones I can think of. So yes, this is a place that government intervention is necessary. Specifically, if you look at many old buildings built pre-ADA (1990) you'll find a disturbing lack of accessibility. It's worth discussing whether the government should ban dogs from businesses that serve food. And it's worth discussing whether the regulations which essentially prevent businesses from validating a service animals papers (so to speak) should be relaxed. However, it seems that it's really a lack of understanding of the law when it comes to the difference between a trained service animal and a companion animal, not horrible government intervention.

gojomo 12y ago

SFWeekly covered the similar proliferation of 'support animals' in San Francisco back in 2009: http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/service-with-a-snarl/Content?oid=2172980&showFullText=true http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/service-with-a-snarl/Co...

wyager 12y ago

Another example of well-intentioned laws (the ADA and associated acts, in this case) having unfortunate semi-predictable side effects. When you muddy the legal waters, you make it very difficult for your average Joe, who has no legal training, to protect themselves from legal abuses like those demonstrated in the article. You're not going to stand up to assholes if you're afraid you might get sued for discrimination.

pakled_engineer 12y ago

I hate the now common occurance of the store and office dog, which is always a yapping tiny viscious ball of fur that immediately runs at you barking when you walk in. Leave precious at home so I can negotiate a sale without the sound of endless barking drowning out our conversation. Get a big fat store kitty and buddy will lie in the window all day quietly if you must surround yourself in animals. I also didn't realize how much people from the middle east despise dogs, there's stores some of my Kuwaiti and Saudi friends won't go into because theres a dog running around, and they consider dogs unclean barn animals. They won't even go into a coffee shop if somebody is in the line with a dog as they expect that place is unhygienic.

littletimmy 12y ago

To look at this from the perspective of animal owners: animals are not "pets" to them, they're family. To deny them bringing a dog in an airplane is like denying them bringing a baby in a airplane. That argument cannot be randomly disregarded because it is a valid one. Dogs bark, babies cry. Dogs are unhygenic, and babies are little balls of filth. Why should a dog fly in cargo because you don't like a dog inside the airplane? I don't like babies, does that mean we should put babies in a crate in the cargo section?

tdkl 12y ago
Pets != humans. There is no other perspective.
- littletimmy 12y ago
  Why are you convinced that your perspective is The perspective?
  - icelancer 12y ago
    Biology isn't a perspective. Well, not yet anyway. We haven't gone that idiotic as a society so far.
- Kiro 12y ago
  How does it feel to be so cold-hearted?
- JimmyM 12y ago
  Yes there is. http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/Singer.pdf http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/Singer.pdf
  - NhanH 12y ago
    Did you read the paper? Because the paper doesn't contradict the claims that "Pets != humans". The argument that the paper made, and I quote "I argue that we should drop the belief in the equal value of human life, replacing it with a graduated view that applies to animals as well as to humans.", emphasize the first half of the sentence (sidenote: the claim shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that know about Singer's utilitarian stance, he's super consistent in being an utilitarian :-) ). He isn't saying that pets is equal to human in moral status, he's saying that the difference shouldn't be explained just by species.

tdkl 12y ago

> emotional-support animals As an European: wat ?

briandear 12y ago
Exactly. If I go to the local tabac/bar/newsstand and proclaim that I need an emotional support animal, I'd be laughed out of the country. Or, more likely, they'd pour me a Pastis and tell me to find a woman.

tallanvor 12y ago

I look at this from a slightly different perspective... Why shouldn't animals (mainly dogs, really) be allowed in many of these places, assuming they are well behaved? When I lived in the UK, you would often see a dog or two in pubs or outside areas of restaurants. Even occasionally in the grocery store (they were smaller ones, though, and always in a cart). There was never any commotion over them. In Norway, dogs aren't even allowed in the outdoor area of restaurants unless the waiters are willing to look the other way. The same goes for pharmacies and grocery stores (some grocery stores look the other way if you are carrying the dog). The explanation is always that the Norwegian food authority (which also has jurisdiction over pets, for some odd reason) bans them because people might have allergies. I think Norway is an example of taking things way too far. Why not allow the shop owners to decide for themselves whether they are more interested in catering to dog owners or people who might be allergic? People with allergies have to worry no matter what, because a service dog is still allowed in, so they have no guarantee of not encountering a dog, and if they have a severe allergy, the dog hair on my clothes could be enough to set off an allergy attack (if it isn't, my dog probably won't cause the person any problems unless she jumps on them, which I always do my best to prevent). In the end, people need to stop abusing the system, but the system needs to be relaxed to allow more flexibility.

eloisant 12y ago
Unfortunately it seems that, especially in US, most problems end up an "us vs them" problem. People pick sides and do whatever it takes to win battles. For example I'm baffled to know that in US, some "pet forbidden" apartment buildings exist. Come on, people not allowed to have pets at their own house??
- JimmyM 12y ago
  This is also the case in the UK. Here in the UK, in general (I don't know about the US), renting a property allows you the right to just about live there, grudgingly, and it is definitely NOT your house or home. This is true more of the lower end of the market than the higher.
  - 12y ago

neuronic 12y ago

Just made an account to reply. I have absolutely nothing against dogs or other pets whatsoever. Sometimes I expect to be sitting in the library or in a cafe, usually a confined place, for a while. To do some work or chat with a friend etc. The issue is, I am extremely allergic against dogs (only horses are worse but I hope nobody will bring a horse into my go-to cafe). So now somebody enters with their dog, lets it run around freely (!) and I have nowhere to go. Dogs are about the only things that reliably induce allergic asthma in me if exposure time is > 1 hour. So thankfully that rarely happens. But I get immediate massive hayfever symptoms. Sneezing 8 times in a row, runny nose like there is no tomorrow, itchy eyes, all that jazz. I find it irresponsible of people to bring their pets into confined public spaces such as cafes and even more so of the owners to allow it. I like dogs a lot, sadly I cannot own one. But please don't bring it into a place like that for more than a few minutes. That's just my perspective. Same reason I hate subway musicians btw. I mean the one inside the trains. You can't get away from them. You are forced to listen to them. Playing on the street? Ok with me, I can keep walking. But doing it in the train is rude beyond anything and I don understand why people put up with it.

gadders 12y ago

I can't even believe Emotional Support Animals are a thing. People are so feeble. To paraphase the saying, we will go out not with a bang but with a whimper, when people have their ESA animal taken away from them.

cafard 12y ago

Most interesting. I know a fellow who works in retail, and has done so for many years. I remember from a brief bit of conversation a couple of years ago that he must have been unclear on the distinction between service animals and emotional support animals.