snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Wild Kingdom

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 31 January 2018, 06:53 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 16,497
Glasses

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I don't have that sort of emotional issue, and while I need cats in my life they and I are both happier if I leave them at home. But I really don't like the sound of 'can't people with crippling psychological problems just learn to handle them with deep breathing?' I tend to presume that, no, they can't; they'd hardly consider them "crippling" if a bit of deep breathing would take care of it.


.

I did not mean to sound cruel/insensitive. Sorry if I came off that way. I just wish that there was a quick way to distinguish between those who are truly suffering and posers. It maddens me to no end that real sufferers have to jump through all kinds of hoops and reveal information they'd rather keep to themselves all because some posers abuse of the system. I would suggest a photo ID for the animal, but those are easy to fake. Maybe a photo ID with a signature and the emblem of whatever professional organization the doctor/therapist is affiliated with.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 31 January 2018, 08:43 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker View Post
I think this should be changed. What's wrong with requiring a service dog to be licensed as a service dog? Yes, there would be issues with how difficult the licensing is or should be, but given all the stories (some of which are probably apocryphal) of how the system is abused, I think something needs to be done.

Seaboe
As I mentioned:
Animals who are not under their handler's control can be kicked out.
Animals who are not housebroken can be kicked out.
Animals who present a health or safety risk can be kicked out.
Animals who are disrupting a business can be kicked out.

So, if there is a purported service dog (regardless of whether it legitimately qualifies) posing any of these problems, it can be excluded, and if they haven't been, that is a problem of the business not bothering to take actions they legally can take.

If the animal is not causing any of those problems, then it seems to me that there would be little reason to think it is not a legitimate service dog, and no reason to hassle someone over it on the chance that someone might be cheating the system with their well-behaved dog.

And again -- it was brought up in others' posts -- people don't just get to declare their pet an emotional support animal under the federal law. They have to be under a mental health professional's care, for a diagnosed condition. The MHP has to certify that the animal is recommended for treatment or relief of one or more symptoms of the condition. To travel on an airplane with the animal, a further certification is required. And ESA's don't have to be allowed in most public accommodations at all.

It seems very similar to voter ID laws to me. There is no quantifiable evidence that it's a huge problem, people's evidence is often based on biased assumptions and their own or others' anecdotal observations, and a potentially very burdensome "solution" is proposed, which, on balance, will hurt the most vulnerable and most likely have only a tiny effect on the claimed problem. (Which could also have been dealt with under existing laws.)

Last edited by erwins; 31 January 2018 at 08:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 31 January 2018, 11:58 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post

So, if there is a purported service dog (regardless of whether it legitimately qualifies) posing any of these problems, it can be excluded, and if they haven't been, that is a problem of the business not bothering to take actions they legally can take.
That must be a great comfort to people like the child mentioned earlier in this thread who was bitten by a support dog.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cervus View Post
I know a woman who brags that she got a fake service vest for her dog so she can take him on flights for free. I find that reprehensible.
Absolutely agree - it's like the people I know, and in some cases am related to - who use handicapped parking spots that they have absolutely no need for just because they have access to a handicap parking permit.

Last edited by Sue; 01 February 2018 at 12:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01 February 2018, 12:20 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,023
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
As I mentioned:
Animals who are not under their handler's control can be kicked out.
Animals who are not housebroken can be kicked out.
Animals who present a health or safety risk can be kicked out.
Animals who are disrupting a business can be kicked out.
None of which helps much if you're on a plane at the time...
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01 February 2018, 02:01 AM
Skeptic's Avatar
Skeptic Skeptic is offline
 
Join Date: 16 July 2005
Location: Logan, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
There are plenty of Americans who also consider emotional disabilities a big joke to laugh about, too. Fortunately, sometimes, more reasonable and supportive opinions prevail. Even in America. (Or, if you happen to be right that only the US takes emotional support animals seriously, maybe in this case only in America.)
But that is my point. It does seem to be only in America, and yes, I think the rest of the world treats it as a joke. As they should.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01 February 2018, 02:59 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,525
Default

Why?  
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01 February 2018, 03:11 AM
St. Alia St. Alia is offline
 
Join Date: 06 October 2010
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 867
Default

Should we ridicule the use of animals in hospices, children's wards, schools, and nursing homes, too?

I'm not on board with treating options that help mental and emotional diseases and chronic impairments as a joke because g-you doesn't like how it's regulated or enforced.

*You want to be upset at a random Joe taking advantage of things that actually help people who need it? Fine, but you damned well better know what you're talking about and not judging what you think you see or making assumptions. Way too many people have been hurt by people thinking there is a way to tell who is handicapped or disabled without being their doctor or in their shoes.

I'm far more ok with people getting away with bringing animals in public who shouldn't be and fining them when caught than I am with regulating the crap out of a beneficial service for people who already have more needs than I have.

Show me it's an actual problem with data before you expect me to support making things harder on vulnerable people. Also show me that when current regulations and rules are actually enforced that there continues to be a problem.

*g-you
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01 February 2018, 03:30 AM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,741
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
It seems very similar to voter ID laws to me. There is no quantifiable evidence that it's a huge problem, people's evidence is often based on biased assumptions and their own or others' anecdotal observations, and a potentially very burdensome "solution" is proposed, which, on balance, will hurt the most vulnerable and most likely have only a tiny effect on the claimed problem. (Which could also have been dealt with under existing laws.)
I don't think it's that similar to voter ID laws. Aside from the fact that I believe voter ID laws are more commonly motivated by a desire to disenfranchise minorities and poor people than legitimate concern over fraud, and the fact that I have personally known people who have obtained fake emotional support animal letters on the internet so they could live in no-pets apartments with their pets (while I have never known anyone who participated in voter fraud), I also think the consequences of a single dog bite are far graver than the consequences of a single illegitimate vote. There's also the issue of allergies. I think this is more analogous to licensing and registration for cars, guns, and other important yet potentially dangerous things.

How do you feel about the requirements to obtain a disabled parking placard? If you think those are OK but a similar system for animals is unduly burdensome, why?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01 February 2018, 04:00 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Alia View Post
I'm not on board with treating options that help mental and emotional diseases and chronic impairments as a joke because g-you doesn't like how it's regulated or enforced.
Thank you. That's what I would like to say too.

IMO Basically people who have no expertise - or even very basic knowledge - about emotional support needs or methods are having a laugh based on nothing but their own ignorance. They're the ones I think should be ridiculed.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01 February 2018, 04:35 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esprise Me View Post
How do you feel about the requirements to obtain a disabled parking placard? If you think those are OK but a similar system for animals is unduly burdensome, why?
What, one of these? https://m.ebay.com/itm/Handicap-Plac...-/152882581732. People get accused of cheating with those too, both rightly and​ wrongly.

Getting one is actually pretty similar to the requirements for an emotional support animal. You have to have a certification from a doctor. That's pretty much it.

I do think an education campaign would be helpful.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01 February 2018, 04:50 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
That must be a great comfort to people like the child mentioned earlier in this thread who was bitten by a support dog.
If it was supposed to be an emotional support animal, it didn't have to be let into the store at all, the owner is potentially liable for the bite, and the dog could likely be taken by animal control. But adding certification requirements would deter jerks who take their untrained bitey dogs out in public?

What do you think the solution is? If it's a vest or card or badge, how do you prevent fraud without burdening disabled people?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01 February 2018, 01:16 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard W View Post
None of which helps much if you're on a plane at the time...
They would do the same thing as they do when a human passenger does any of those things (which, based on my reading of the news, happens a lot more often), they land as soon a possible, remove the offender, and then continue on. And possibly prosecute the offender.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01 February 2018, 02:22 PM
Seaboe Muffinchucker's Avatar
Seaboe Muffinchucker Seaboe Muffinchucker is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 18,423
Glasses

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
If the animal is not causing any of those problems, then it seems to me that there would be little reason to think it is not a legitimate service dog, and no reason to hassle someone over it on the chance that someone might be cheating the system with their well-behaved dog
You mentioned yourself that there is a difference between emotional support animals and service animals. Your examples all concern the former, and my complaint concerns the latter.

Interestingly enough, the state of Washington is considering a bill to impose fines on people who falsely claim their animal is a service animal. The bill, H.B. 2822, was introduced in January of this year.

Seaboe
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01 February 2018, 02:28 PM
Ellestar Ellestar is offline
 
Join Date: 31 July 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,810
Default

I know I'm probably going to be in the absolute minority with this opinion, but I think it should be easier to travel with pets by air, full stop. I admit, I'm a complete animal lover, so when I see a dog or a cat in the airport or on my plane, I get happy rather than annoyed.

This isn't to say that I think that those with allergies don't have a legitimate complaint.

Perhaps there could be options:

1. People with allergies or an aversion to animals have some fights at regular prices.
2. People traveling with animals have other flights and are made to pay extra depending on size and portability of the animal (one fee for those that can travel under seats and on laps, another that require full seats) with the fee waived for those with the emotional support or service animals.
3. People who don't mind traveling with animals who go on the animal designated flights at (perhaps) a slightly reduced price for any potential inconvenience.

Obviously, there would be some major issues that would have to be ironed out for the designated animal flights, and perhaps it would be unfeasible and would no doubt come with a slew of rules on the plane that would be very constricting for both people and animals. But looking back to when I had my labrador and all of the issues that occurred because he couldn't travel by air with me, I would have paid a good amount for the extra convenience. And I would get SO salty if there was an awful toddler on board, but I couldn't bring my quiet, well-behaved dog.

Again, I'm an animal lover without allergies so I don't get the rolling eyes or the annoyance of seeing an animal in an airport or on a plane. And I think if there were more legitimate ways to travel with animals, people would be less likely to try to game the system.

*shrug*
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01 February 2018, 02:33 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker View Post
You mentioned yourself that there is a difference between emotional support animals and service animals. Your examples all concern the former, and my complaint concerns the latter.

Interestingly enough, the state of Washington is considering a bill to impose fines on people who falsely claim their animal is a service animal. The bill, H.B. 2822, was introduced in January of this year.

Seaboe
No, the first half of that post was all about rules that apply to service animals, in direct response to your quoted post.

I shifted to a point about emotional support animals later, which I prefaced by saying it was brought up in other posts. I could have been more.clear about that shift, but the only part about ESAs is the part where I referred to emotional support animals. The behavior rules all apply equally to ESAs, plus documentation can be required.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01 February 2018, 02:39 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,041
Default

Regarding the OP peacock: It seems likely that it is covered by a federal rule that says airlines do not have to allow ESAs that are unusual or exotic.

Quote:
(f) You are never required to accommodate certain unusual service animals (e.g., snakes, other reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders) as service animals in the cabin. With respect to all other animals, including unusual or exotic animals that are presented as service animals (e.g., miniature horses, pigs, monkeys), as a carrier you must determine whether any factors preclude their traveling in the cabin as service animals (e.g., whether the animal is too large or heavy to be accommodated in the cabin, whether the animal would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others, whether it would cause a significant disruption of cabin service, whether it would be prohibited from entering a foreign country that is the flight's destination).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/382.117

ETA: Under federal law, only dogs can be service animals.

Last edited by erwins; 01 February 2018 at 02:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01 February 2018, 02:43 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,796
Default

Samuel L. Jackson is quite pleased.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01 February 2018, 03:23 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,041
Default

Too late to edit. My ETA above is not quite right. It should say, under the ADA and associated regulations, only dogs are considered service animals. But other animals may qualify as service animals under the law that applies to air travel. The exclusion of unusual or exotic animals applies as well, though, in that context. And airlines can exclude animals that are not under control or pose a health or safety risk. Also, even for service animals, documentation can be required, for flights over 8 hours, that the animal either won't need to relieve itself, or can do so in a "sanitary" manner.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01 February 2018, 05:54 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellestar View Post

Again, I'm an animal lover without allergies so I don't get the rolling eyes or the annoyance of seeing an animal in an airport or on a plane. And I think if there were more legitimate ways to travel with animals, people would be less likely to try to game the system.

*shrug*
I don't disagree that it may make sense to make things a little easier for people to travel with their pets but the issue of people "gaming the system" isn't limited to planes. Faux support animals are far more problematic, IMO anyway, in stores and restaurants. Frankly anyone who is low enough to pass off a pet as a support animal isn't someone I would trust to have a well disciplined pet and these are the ones giving a black eye to those who have genuine support animals that, presumably (optimistically perhaps) are trained in how to behave in public venues.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01 February 2018, 06:30 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,041
Default

If by "support animals" you mean emotional support animals, in this country, at least, stores and restaurants don't have to let them in at all. ESAs can require waiver of no pets policies in housing and employment as reasonable accommodations. Likewise for people visiting government offices or certain kinds of NGOs. But there is no general requirement to allow them in public accommodations, like businesses and restaurants.

Again, the businesses in question are choosing not to do something they are allowed to do. That is a beef that ought to be taken up with them rather than criticizing the law that doesn't require them to allow these animals at all, let alone poorly behaved "faux" versions.

For those that think there should be a certification system, how would you envision that working in practice?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Russian plane crash: Choir members on board, no sign of survivors Psihala Crash and Burn 0 25 December 2016 03:16 PM
Passengers Fall in Love With Emotional Support Duck on Flight Psihala Wild Kingdom 9 19 October 2016 04:45 PM
Woman who struck boys with SUV, killing one, sues families for 'emotional trauma' UEL Moot Court 33 03 March 2015 02:30 PM
Woman Drowned Puppy In Airport Toilet After Not Being Allowed To Board Plane With It A Turtle Named Mack Wild Kingdom 3 27 January 2015 03:43 PM
Police Say Man Sexually Abused His Peacock A Turtle Named Mack Police Blotter 8 06 June 2013 05:37 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.