EA CO AS wrote:Throwing this idea out there to see if it has merit. We've all heard at one point or another how the rise of "emotional support" animals, while needed in some cases, has also made it more difficult for legitimate service animals and their owners; pets masquerading as emotional support animals are not trained, or at least not to the same standard as proper service animals, and frequently create problems in public, especially on aircraft. The fact that there's an incentive for doing so (I get to take Fluffy anywhere with me for free!) and that businesses have sprung up selling legitimate-looking badging, vests, and even doctors peddling notes after assessing a patient via telephone for a fee, exacerbates the problem greatly.
So, what if we went this route?
o Standardized, federally-issued service animal badging required for all service animals
o These could only be obtained via a prescription from a licensed physician, similar to controlled substances
o Require the badging be renewed after a set number of years, or even annually
o Make it a federal crime to knowingly provide a prescription for a service animal badge to people without a disability as codified under the ADA or ACAA
o Make it a federal crime to use false statements, badging, or other means to identify a pet or emotional support/therapy animal as a service animal
My thoughts are that this would more clearly enable businesses to identify a legitimate service animal vs.emotional support ones, allowing people to better support the needs of those customers while also being sensitive to the requests of those with emotional support/therapy animals but knowing the limitations under the law.
ER757 wrote:I like where you're going with this - it is a HUGE problem in the legitimate service animal community. These so-called support animals and falsely labeled service animals give the truly gifted dogs (and other species) that perform actual, valuable, needed services for people a bad rap because the impostors mis-behave and cause people to tar them all with the same brush. Something has to be done - I see these phonies all the time at the airport and even at the local Children's Hospital when I am volunteering at these venues and it makes my blood boil.
EA CO AS wrote:Throwing this idea out there to see if it has merit. We've all heard at one point or another how the rise of "emotional support" animals, while needed in some cases, has also made it more difficult for legitimate service animals and their owners; pets masquerading as emotional support animals are not trained, or at least not to the same standard as proper service animals, and frequently create problems in public, especially on aircraft. The fact that there's an incentive for doing so (I get to take Fluffy anywhere with me for free!) and that businesses have sprung up selling legitimate-looking badging, vests, and even doctors peddling notes after assessing a patient via telephone for a fee, exacerbates the problem greatly.
So, what if we went this route?
o Standardized, federally-issued service animal badging required for all service animals
o These could only be obtained via a prescription from a licensed physician, similar to controlled substances
o Require the badging be renewed after a set number of years, or even annually
o Make it a federal crime to knowingly provide a prescription for a service animal badge to people without a disability as codified under the ADA or ACAA
o Make it a federal crime to use false statements, badging, or other means to identify a pet or emotional support/therapy animal as a service animal
My thoughts are that this would more clearly enable businesses to identify a legitimate service animal vs.emotional support ones, allowing people to better support the needs of those customers while also being sensitive to the requests of those with emotional support/therapy animals but knowing the limitations under the law.
jfkgig wrote:And if anybody should think that this is not a real concern on the part of pet owners, they should look at the statistics. United for example, last year had 23 pet injuries, including 9 deaths for every 10,000 pets flown. This is an incredibly high number, which is nothing less than a scandal, and demonstrates that pet owners fears of putting their pets below are far from unfounded. How many seats do you reckon United would be able to sell to human passengers if their injury/death rate were even remotely similar to the number for pets?
alfa164 wrote:jfkgig wrote:And if anybody should think that this is not a real concern on the part of pet owners, they should look at the statistics. United for example, last year had 23 pet injuries, including 9 deaths for every 10,000 pets flown. This is an incredibly high number, which is nothing less than a scandal, and demonstrates that pet owners fears of putting their pets below are far from unfounded. How many seats do you reckon United would be able to sell to human passengers if their injury/death rate were even remotely similar to the number for pets?
And all because some self-absorbed individuals think Fluffy really wants to fly with them, stuffed in an under-seat carrier... or in a cargo compartment... for two...or three...or ten hours. Most people can't afford the upkeep on trophy wives (or husbands), but their trophy pets are there to show off. I wonder... do your neighbors insist on plopping down their domestic animal in your house, when they come for a visit? Leave the pet in familiar surroundings - or with someone who will care for it. Pets get injured on aircraft because airplanes are not meant for pet travel.
Leave the pet at home and get a life! (end of rant)
jfkgig wrote:Do you think that these people should just abandon their pets when they move? Do you think that they should instead just grin and bear it and bear a 24 in 10,000 chance that their pet will be killed or injured, or a much larger chance that they will suffer in a freezing baggage compartment or be neglected in an airport transfer facility?
B777LRF wrote:jfkgig wrote:Do you think that these people should just abandon their pets when they move? Do you think that they should instead just grin and bear it and bear a 24 in 10,000 chance that their pet will be killed or injured, or a much larger chance that they will suffer in a freezing baggage compartment or be neglected in an airport transfer facility?
No, they shouldn't abandon them - they should have refrained from getting the animal in the first place! For years I craved for a dog or cat to keep me company, but my job was such I travelled 100-150 days a year, and changed location - including country - around every 2-3 years. It seemed utterly selfish of me to expose an animal to that kind of lifestyle, so I didn't get a cat or dog. See how that works?
I've been in aviation for too many years, and have seen way too many dogs and cats pulled off aircraft in a deceased state. I really don't give a toss for the selfish owner who insisted on taking Poodles with her to Mallorca on vacation, but I do feel for poor Poodles who died from stress whilst be locked up in a cage in a cold, noisy, vibrating environment.
It is actually incredibly rare that an animal dies because of neglect by flight crew or ground handlers. By a very large margin, the main cause of death is stress. Happens more to cats than dogs.
So stop being a selfish idiot when you decided to get a pet. If your lifestyle is such that you move quite frequently, or have a job that sees you away from home for extended periods of time, don't get an animal.
I know of no other country in the world who accepts the vomit inducing term 'emotional support animal'. Snowflake idiocy of the highest order.
n471wn wrote:So as many of you know I am a huge SWA fan and we are getting a labradoddle puppy in Houston and we live in the SF Bay Area. So we are flying the new puppy from HOU to OAK and SWA is charging us $78 for the container and $95 to let the dog fly. However, the dog must be under the seat and it counts as one of the two carry ones. If the dog is under the seat taking NO bin space why the $95 charge?
jfkgig wrote:It is of course perfectly legitimate for service dogs to be on planes, but no less legitimate for non-disabled people to be able to travel with their pets without putting them in unreasonable danger. It should not make your "blood boil" that people are trying to keep their animals safe. Until non-disabled passengers can travel with their pets in a safe manner, these passengers with pets will do whatever is necessary to keep them out of danger -- including making them "service animals." Don't criticize people for protecting their pets.
jfkgig wrote:But you aren't entitled to make value judgments or decisions for other people. You are very entitled to live your own life the way that best suits you, and decide that you are more dedicated to your job than the love of your family.
jfkgig wrote:[You seem rather impressed with yourself to be able demonstrate such a callous disregard for these concerns of other people whom you are unable to relate to, but those who value the well being of their entire family will no doubt understand these issues.
EA CO AS wrote:jfkgig wrote:It is of course perfectly legitimate for service dogs to be on planes, but no less legitimate for non-disabled people to be able to travel with their pets without putting them in unreasonable danger. It should not make your "blood boil" that people are trying to keep their animals safe. Until non-disabled passengers can travel with their pets in a safe manner, these passengers with pets will do whatever is necessary to keep them out of danger -- including making them "service animals." Don't criticize people for protecting their pets.
The problem is that these untrained, household pets, in close proximity with highly trained service animals, can be an unsafe situation. Emotional support animals that were actually just pets have, in some cases, not only kept service animals from doing their jobs by pestering them, but even attacking them, sometimes resulting in the service animal not being able to be used as a working animal anymore. That means hundreds of hours of training and tens of thousands of dollars invested wiped out in the blink of an eye, just because Fluffy decided to take a swipe at a working animal.
And that's even more unfair to those who rely on service animals daily than those who just want to take their pet on vacation with them.
alfa164 wrote:jfkgig wrote:But you aren't entitled to make value judgments or decisions for other people. You are very entitled to live your own life the way that best suits you, and decide that you are more dedicated to your job than the love of your family.
The rest of us should also be able to live our lives minus having these substitute security blankets imposed upon us, and we should be allowed to travel, inside the confines of a slim metal tube, at 500 miles per hour, with having someone with an insatiable desire for approval from a four-legged animal imposing that beastie upon us. Talk about selfish... what about having respect for the other passengers, who don't enjoy yapping, whining, often-smelly mutts. How about those passengers with pet allergies? Someone fear of animals? You are making a decision for them that ranges from making them uncomfortable... to putting them in real danger.jfkgig wrote:[You seem rather impressed with yourself to be able demonstrate such a callous disregard for these concerns of other people whom you are unable to relate to, but those who value the well being of their entire family will no doubt understand these issues.
If you "family" consists of something other than a two-legged mammal... somewhere in the bloodline, someone did something really, really bad...
jfkgig wrote:alfa164 wrote:jfkgig wrote:And if anybody should think that this is not a real concern on the part of pet owners, they should look at the statistics. United for example, last year had 23 pet injuries, including 9 deaths for every 10,000 pets flown. This is an incredibly high number, which is nothing less than a scandal, and demonstrates that pet owners fears of putting their pets below are far from unfounded. How many seats do you reckon United would be able to sell to human passengers if their injury/death rate were even remotely similar to the number for pets?
And all because some self-absorbed individuals think Fluffy really wants to fly with them, stuffed in an under-seat carrier... or in a cargo compartment... for two...or three...or ten hours. Most people can't afford the upkeep on trophy wives (or husbands), but their trophy pets are there to show off. I wonder... do your neighbors insist on plopping down their domestic animal in your house, when they come for a visit? Leave the pet in familiar surroundings - or with someone who will care for it. Pets get injured on aircraft because airplanes are not meant for pet travel.
Leave the pet at home and get a life! (end of rant)
Yes, that is rant, and rather a sociopathic one in my opinion, which seems not to be able to contemplate the lives and needs of anybody except yourself. You cooly dismiss people wanting to travel with their animals as "self-absorbed" individuals who merely think that their dog wants to travel on vacation with them. Stop for a moment and imagine that people don't all live like you, and some lead lives which require them to travel not for vacations, but because their work takes them and their families overseas for long periods of time. Do you think that these people should just abandon their pets when they move? Do you think that they should instead just grin and bear it and bear a 24 in 10,000 chance that their pet will be killed or injured, or a much larger chance that they will suffer in a freezing baggage compartment or be neglected in an airport transfer facility? You seem rather impressed with yourself to be able demonstrate such a callous disregard for these concerns of other people whom you are unable to relate to, but those who value the well being of their entire family will no doubt understand these issues.
jfkgig wrote:I guess we can all speculate about what might happen, but can you cite a single instance of a non-service animal interfering with a service animal on a plane?
grbauc wrote:Who really cares what people bring. Regulate regulate regulate..
jfkgig wrote:And if anybody should think that this is not a real concern on the part of pet owners, they should look at the statistics. United for example, last year had 23 pet injuries, including 9 deaths for every 10,000 pets flown. This is an incredibly high number, which is nothing less than a scandal, and demonstrates that pet owners fears of putting their pets below are far from unfounded. How many seats do you reckon United would be able to sell to human passengers if their injury/death rate were even remotely similar to the number for pets?
CobaltScar wrote:Multiple airlines (like the SWA example above) allow passengers to fly with their pets in the cabin with them for a extra fee. But in my experience the amount of "ESANs" (emotional support animals) out number them 10 to 1, easy.
Why pay the fee and be required to keep the animal in its carrier under the seat when you can just claim its for emotional support and fly it for free and be allowed to hold and play with the animal inflight? Honestly its sort of becoming the new normal, I'm more shocked when someone has a actual "pet" on board more so than a emotional support/service animal.
My possible solution? Do away with the pet fees and just bundle the cost into the airline ticket. Announce "and on our airline pets ride free!!" , but would need collusion among most carriers to make it work.
n471wn wrote:So as many of you know I am a huge SWA fan and we are getting a labradoddle puppy in Houston and we live in the SF Bay Area. So we are flying the new puppy from HOU to OAK and SWA is charging us $78 for the container and $95 to let the dog fly. However, the dog must be under the seat and it counts as one of the two carry ones. If the dog is under the seat taking NO bin space why the $95 charge?
Okie wrote:OMG I am in serious emotional stress because I am afraid that the vicious Emotional Support Animal that another passenger has is going to attack me and bite me.![]()
Can I sue the airline now?![]()
Okie
jfkgig wrote:ER757 wrote:I like where you're going with this - it is a HUGE problem in the legitimate service animal community. These so-called support animals and falsely labeled service animals give the truly gifted dogs (and other species) that perform actual, valuable, needed services for people a bad rap because the impostors mis-behave and cause people to tar them all with the same brush. Something has to be done - I see these phonies all the time at the airport and even at the local Children's Hospital when I am volunteering at these venues and it makes my blood boil.
It is of course perfectly legitimate for service dogs to be on planes, but no less legitimate for non-disabled people to be able to travel with their pets without putting them in unreasonable danger. It should not make your "blood boil" that people are trying to keep their animals safe. Until non-disabled passengers can travel with their pets in a safe manner, these passengers with pets will do whatever is necessary to keep them out of danger -- including making them "service animals." Don't criticize people for protecting their pets.
dc9northwest wrote:I suggest you get an emotional support snake
ER757 wrote:jfkgig wrote:ER757 wrote:I like where you're going with this - it is a HUGE problem in the legitimate service animal community. These so-called support animals and falsely labeled service animals give the truly gifted dogs (and other species) that perform actual, valuable, needed services for people a bad rap because the impostors mis-behave and cause people to tar them all with the same brush. Something has to be done - I see these phonies all the time at the airport and even at the local Children's Hospital when I am volunteering at these venues and it makes my blood boil.
It is of course perfectly legitimate for service dogs to be on planes, but no less legitimate for non-disabled people to be able to travel with their pets without putting them in unreasonable danger. It should not make your "blood boil" that people are trying to keep their animals safe. Until non-disabled passengers can travel with their pets in a safe manner, these passengers with pets will do whatever is necessary to keep them out of danger -- including making them "service animals." Don't criticize people for protecting their pets.
I am going to have to disagree with your premise, I cannot go along with your idea that people falsify their needs and/or animal's abilities so that they can ride along with Mom or Dad in the cabin. Sorry - if you are not truly in need of a service animal and your animal is not legit and you are concerned bad things will happen if they go under the floor, then don't take them on the trip, period. We clearly are not on the same page here and never will be, so let's just move on.