A woman tried to board a plane with her emotional-support peacock.

[E. Q. Taft]

Airlines that have begun talking about tightening restrictions on a proliferating array of “emotional support” animals on commercial flights may have found their case bolstered this week after a picture of a peacock that was reportedly denied a seat aboard a United Airlines flight traveled far and wide.

United Airlines confirmed that the exotic animal was barred from the plane Saturday because it “did not meet guidelines for a number of reasons, including its weight and size.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.26a1a81727e5

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft

Airlines that have begun talking about tightening restrictions on a proliferating array of “emotional support” animals on commercial flights may have found their case bolstered this week after a picture of a peacock that was reportedly denied a seat aboard a United Airlines flight traveled far and wide.

United Airlines confirmed that the exotic animal was barred from the plane Saturday because it “did not meet guidelines for a number of reasons, including its weight and size.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.26a1a81727e5

Is America the only place where "emotional support animals" are allowed. I believe Canada does not. Ironically, just yesterday at work (travel industry) we were laughing at the concept and that it would never be accepted in Australia.
Obviously I'm not talking about guide dogs for the blind etc. Just this silly notion that anyone can bring a farm animal or an exotic pet on to a plane, to the detriment of the other passengers and the animal.

Another interesting comparison - years ago I worked in an office supply warehouse shop, and pets were not permitted by law as they also sold some food in one corner of the place.

[erwins]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Just this silly notion that anyone can bring a farm animal or an exotic pet on to a plane, to the detriment of the other passengers and the animal.

That's not how it.works under US federal law, either.

[Cervus]

A lot of Americans think the concept of "emotional support animals" is ridiculous, especially when it refers to any animal other than a dog or cat. Although I know firsthand how much emotional support a pet can (unintentionally) give a person, that doesn't give anyone free reign to take their pets everywhere. I wish it weren't accepted here. Service animals are allowed by law, but when I'm out shopping and I see no fewer than 12 dogs being pushed around in shopping carts in stores, half of them barking and yapping, I know none of these are legitimate service animals. Last year I was in a store when I heard a bark, and then a kid screamed because he'd just been bitten by someone's "emotional support" dog. But God forbid you tell some elderly woman she can't bring her little poochie-who'd-never-bite-anyone into the grocery store.

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.

[UEL]

Originally Posted by Cervus

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.

Around here there is a distinction between support animals and service animals. Yet there are people that continue to claim theirs are one or the other.

Main distinction is whether the animal executes a function a person cannot. If they do, such as navigate traffic for a blind person, they are a service animal**. But if they are there to comfort a person, and do no functional task, they are a support animal.

Under most regulations, the two are indistinct. But, in some instances, there are differences in the manners in which the two animals are treated. Both wear vests when working.

But, as you have said Cervus, there are a lot of fakers around. I brought up the one time I was in a McDo and a woman claimed the dog in her purse was a support animal. But it was on the table and she was feeding it food from her tray. Likely story.

As I'm down east, though, I'm seeing fewer of these fakers. I don't know whether it is the nature of the communities, or the lack of resources, or the fact that one would likely get called out a lot sooner down here. But I don't see too many fakers. (I see a noticeable amount of legitimate ones, though)

**All sorts of tasks fall under this, seizure detection, guide dogs, assisted living dogs (that fetch required items), and many more. There is a demonstration that gets put on here once per year to help raise awareness and money for these programmes

[Sue]

I saw this story on my news feed on FB and assumed it was, to quote Trump, "fake news".

[crocoduck_hunter]

Originally Posted by Cervus

A lot of Americans think the concept of "emotional support animals" is ridiculous, especially when it refers to any animal other than a dog or cat. Although I know firsthand how much emotional support a pet can (unintentionally) give a person, that doesn't give anyone free reign to take their pets everywhere. I wish it weren't accepted here. Service animals are allowed by law, but when I'm out shopping and I see no fewer than 12 dogs being pushed around in shopping carts in stores, half of them barking and yapping, I know none of these are legitimate service animals. Last year I was in a store when I heard a bark, and then a kid screamed because he'd just been bitten by someone's "emotional support" dog. But God forbid you tell some elderly woman she can't bring her little poochie-who'd-never-bite-anyone into the grocery store.

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.

Wasn't there just a news story here about how the airlines were considering a new crackdown on support and service animals because of all the abuse?

[dfresh]

I think next flight I will claim my son as an emotional support child.

[WildaBeast]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

Wasn't there just a news story here about how the airlines were considering a new crackdown on support and service animals because of all the abuse?

Yes, Delta recently announced that they will now require documentation from a medical professional stating that the passenger needs the animal.

I thought there was a thread on it here but I can't find it now. I guess I saw it somewhere else and misremembered seeing it here.

[Esprise Me]

Originally Posted by Cervus

Service animals are allowed by law, but when I'm out shopping and I see no fewer than 12 dogs being pushed around in shopping carts in stores, half of them barking and yapping, I know none of these are legitimate service animals. Last year I was in a store when I heard a bark, and then a kid screamed because he'd just been bitten by someone's "emotional support" dog.

You don't actually know a dog isn't a service animal just because it's poorly trained. Some service dogs are professionally trained and perfectly behaved; some were professionally trained but have since been spoiled rotten (shout-out to my blind law school classmate and her crotch-sniffing, lunch-stealing guide dog) and some were never professionally trained in the first place, as that's not a requirement for service animals under the ADA. If you discover by accident that your dog can smell your seizures coming on and you teach him to bark or hump your leg or whatever to warn you, guess what? You've got yourself a legitimate service dog. And under the ADA, that dog is allowed to be just about anywhere you're allowed to be, even if he's in a stroller, though management can toss you both out if he's behaving badly.

Emotional support animals are different; their owners are not entitled to bring them anywhere except their homes (e.g. in the case of a no pets apartment) and airlines. The 19-year-old shift manager getting paid a dollar an hour more than minimum wage may not be sufficiently well-versed in the laws to know this, or may decide it's just easier to look the other way, and some people with support animals that are not service animals do take advantage of this. But that's not an issue with the law itself.

There is arguably an issue with the law regarding service dogs in that it doesn't require behavior training or any type of certification or registration with an agency. The rationale is to avoid putting additional barriers in the way of people with disabilities, but there are public safety and health issues to consider too. My solution would involve a taxpayer-funded certification program so as to ensure public safety without financially burdening the disabled individuals, but while I'm getting that legislation passed I might as well enact an ordinance to make it rain kittens over the homes of anyone who needs them.

Originally Posted by UEL

Under most regulations, [service and support animals] are indistinct. But, in some instances, there are differences in the manners in which the two animals are treated. Both wear vests when working.

I'm surprised to hear they're treated mostly the same there. Do you have a cite to the laws governing support animals?

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Is America the only place where "emotional support animals" are allowed.

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.)

[erwins]

Emotional support animals:

Quite a bit of documentation can be required for emotional support animals. Airlines only have to accept them with proper documentation, including a mental health professional's certification that it is necessary for the animal to accompany the person on the flight. They don't have to be allowed in places of public accommodation. A person with an ESA can request a reasonable accommodation in housing and employment to be able to have the animal with them, and airlines have to accept them if they meet the requirements of that specific law.

Service dogs:

Service dogs that are not under the handler's control, or are not housebroken, can be excluded. An animal that poses a health or safety risk can be excluded. If an animal disrupts the business -- say, barking a lot in a movie theater, it can be excluded.

No documentation can be required of a service dog (except by airlines) and there are only 2 questions allowed: Is the animal required due to a disability? and What work or task has the animal been trained to perform? (The questions may not be asked if the answers are obvious.) The disabled person does not have to pay if an extra seat is required, they can't be required to sit in a particular place, or otherwise be treated differently from any other passenger.

There are plenty of grounds for poorly behaved animals to be kept out of businesses. The fact that they are not is because the businesses are making a choice, not because their hands are somehow tied by the law, and the lack of a certification requirement.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Does that include exit rows?

[erwins]

Correct, they cannot be required to sit in exit rows.

/smartass.

They cannot, apparently, (I Googled) be seated in exit rows for safety reasons. That is not the same thing as requiring them to sit in a particular place.

[UEL]

Originally Posted by Esprise Me

I'm surprised to hear they're treated mostly the same there. Do you have a cite to the laws governing support animals?

Support animals are not protected by our Charter as service animals are.

This page has a good summary of the rights of someone with a service animal. And a good description of a service animal and what is needed for an animal to qualify.

Legislation regarding service animals found at the bottom of this link.

So, where in most cases, an owner of a shop cannot deny a service animal for fear of breaching one or several statutes, there are no protections for support animals.

While looking for a link that backs that point up, I found an ADA site that says very much the same thing.

Some more: BC defines Service animals well and the rights. Support animals don't have the coverage.

In summary, if you have a dog that has been trained in a recognised establishment, is registered, and is identified, there is usually no distinction. However, if the dog is a true service animal, there are several levels of protection. If the dog is a support animal, the levels of protection are thin to non-existent.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Originally Posted by erwins

They cannot, apparently, (I Googled) be seated in exit rows for safety reasons. That is not the same thing as requiring them to sit in a particular place.

I figured that that was probably the case, but wanted to check.

[DawnStorm]

Originally Posted by Cervus

A lot of Americans think the concept of "emotional support animals" is ridiculous, especially when it refers to any animal other than a dog or cat. Although I know firsthand how much emotional support a pet can (unintentionally) give a person, that doesn't give anyone free reign to take their pets everywhere.

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.

Preach it! I think this whole Emotional Support Animal issue is getting out of hand; yes there are people who suffer from crippling emotional issues that may overwhelm them when they least expect it, but couldn't they learn how to handle them via deep breathing, self-talk, etc? Make an ESA a last resort. I also think it's gotten to the point where organizations like Seeing Eye Dog et al should create and trademark an emblem for the harnesses that they alone issue. A harness that just says "Service" is not one I take seriously-hell's bells I could get one of those for my own dog.
You really honest-to-god cannot go anywhere without your emotional support dog, parrot, wombat, spider, etc?! I find that really hard to believe.

[Lainie]

I don't know how we'd know, at a glance, who has and has not tried other methods/made the animal the last resort.

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by DawnStorm

yes there are people who suffer from crippling emotional issues that may overwhelm them when they least expect it, but couldn't they learn how to handle them via deep breathing, self-talk, etc?

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.



ETA: It might well be useful, however, to have some standard means of certifying trained assistance and support animals. Even if training's not needed for the support etc (and sometimes even assistance animals have taught the people, rather than the other way around), they should certainly be trained to behave themselves while out in public, or be able to pass a test that they don't need such training. You'd need a whole structure set up to decide who was authorized to train and who to certify, though.

[Seaboe Muffinchucker]

Originally Posted by erwins

No documentation can be required of a service dog

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