Airline Support Animal Walkback

[Mojochi]

So a number of airlines have begun (returning to ) prohibited flying with support animals, unless they are specifically trained service animals. So no more emotional support animals.

What say you? Seems like a right move to me. I have to imagine, like with anything else, the reason for the change back is simply because people began taking it too far.

I actually never quite figured out when & why they started allowing them onboard to begin with.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

But, I need my support Peacock!!!

No doubt it started with one self-entitled yahoo threatening a lawsuit when someone attempted to stop them, which of course set a precedent.

 

[Kor]

It does seem that people were taking it too far. NPR did a story on this last month.

SCHAPER: Hartshorn says some crew members and passengers have even been bitten by these animals that were allowed on planes because of travelers exploiting a loophole in federal law to avoid paying for their pets to fly with them. Most airlines charge passengers a fee to fly with their small pets inside the cabin. But federal law allowed people with disabilities to have service animals free of charge, including emotional support and comfort animals without clearly defining what those are. Gary Leff writes the airline industry blog the View from the Wing.

So the new US Federal law only allows dogs with specific training to be aboard airplanes as service animals. This actually does not line up with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and various state laws which also allow miniature horses to be trained service animals. And the person with the dog must provide detailed documentation. This also goes beyond the ADA. But air travel is a special case, and the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) applies here instead of the ADA. This page from the US Dept. of Transportation has not been updated, as it still has the old rules allowing a variety of animals.

This Forbes article shows how this specific allowance for only dogs was the result of airline industry lobbying.

The general public often does not grasp the difference between service animals and emotional support/comfort animals, which are two separate categories. Fair housing laws require that the emotional support animals be allowed in rental homes and apartments, but those housing laws do not apply in places of business and commerce, where the ADA applies instead. So then confusion and consternation arise when completely different rules apply in different spaces, and somebody finds out that the support animal that they are allowed to have in their apartment cannot be brought with them into a store (and now onto a plane).

Kor

 

[JirinPanthosa]

It sounds like a matter of too many people lying to be able to get their pets in the cabin. If there is someone with serious mental health issues who has a well trained animal they need to cope, I'd be in favor of letting them. But they need to be well trained enough not to be disruptive, is the key.

 

[Mojochi]

Hey, thanks for the info @Kor. That makes things much clearer.

It sounds like a matter of too many people lying to be able to get their pets in the cabin. If there is someone with serious mental health issues who has a well trained animal they need to cope, I'd be in favor of letting them. But they need to be well trained enough not to be disruptive, is the key.

Trained & documented as serving a legitimate funtion in some health/disability capacity. "It makes me feel better" doesn't seem all that legitimate to me.

If someone is incapable of functioning in a public environment without the presence of an animal to maintain them emotionally, then perhaps an animal isn't enough, & that individual should be monitored by a person trained to look after them.

I can't think of any condition that would make a person medically compromised emotionally, where it would be otherwise entirely manageable just because they had some random critter around, to ease them emotionally. That's an iffy prospect, to say the least, & a person who needs guardianship, IMHO

 

[Kor]

In the case of businesses that serve the public and therefore fall under ADA rules (which as I mentioned above is a completely different sphere than air travel), the person with the animal can be asked two specific questions: 1) if the dog (or miniature horse) is a service animal required because of a disability, and 2) what task/work the animal has been trained to do for the person.

The answer to question #2 will tell a lot about whether the animal actually qualifies as a service animal as defined under the ADA, or is really an emotional support/comfort animal. For example, "my dog is trained to steer me away from known anxiety triggers" is actually a specific task, but "my dog makes me feel better" is not a task/work.

The business employee is not allowed to ask for any kind of documentation for service animals. And this makes sense because the ADA allows a person to train their animal themselves, in whatever manner they see fit to meet their own personal needs. The person is not required to send the animal to some expensive professional training certification program, or to obtain their animal from a professional service animal company in the first place.

With airlines now requiring documentation for service animals, I'm not sure how that would work for people who trained their own animal. Maybe some kind of sworn statement/affidavit?

Kor

 

[Non Sync]

I was working in Hollywood years ago and the production I was working on had a holiday party at the Roosevelt Hotel. The Executive Producer of the show walked through the lobby wearing sunglasses at night while grabbing his dog's collar and pretended he was blind in order to bring his dog to the party.

This same dog was allowed to roam the offices and he almost bit me. He came up behind me while I was walking in the office space. I was aware of him just as he was starting to bite and moved me leg. He didn't tear my pants, but did partially break the skin.

 

[Mojochi]

With airlines now requiring documentation for service animals, I'm not sure how that would work for people who trained their own animal. Maybe some kind of sworn statement/affidavit?

Well, some manner of legitimate health/disability need must be present, no? Otherwise I could just say my animal is trained to fetch things for me, to reduce my depression or whatever... So as long as the dog can fetch, it's a service.

Having a health care provider, or some such, provide valid documentation of a condition for which animal assistance is necessary, might be sufficient even for a self trained animal maybe

 

[Kor]

Well, some manner of legitimate health/disability need must be present, no? Otherwise I could just say my animal is trained to fetch things for me, to reduce my depression or whatever... So as long as the dog can fetch, it's a service.

Having a health care provider, or some such, provide valid documentation of a condition for which animal assistance is necessary, might be sufficient even for a self trained animal maybe

I think that "my dog is trained to reduce my depression" still does not count a specific task, and that would make the dog an emotional support/comfort animal instead of a service animal.

I just found this page from the US DOT which details the final rule on all this, and also their FAQ. So the documentation will be two specific forms developed by the DOT, and not letters from health care providers etc.

• Allows airlines to require forms developed by DOT attesting to a service animal’s health, behavior and training, and if taking a long flight attesting that the service animal can either not relieve itself, or can relieve itself in a sanitary manner;

As always, there may still be some individuals who act in bad faith and try to game the system. But I think there needs to be some level of reasonableness and respect, in not interrogating a person for all kinds of private information.

In the ADA sphere, businesses are prohibited from asking a person with a service animal about the nature of their disability/condition. The person may divulge pertinent details if they feel it's necessary to explain what the animal is trained to do, but they don't have to give proof of diagnosis, medical history, etc. "My dog is trained to fetch things for me" may be somewhat vague, with something like "my dog is trained to fetch things that I can't reach because my range of motion is significantly reduced" probably being more preferable. But if the employee tries to press the person for more details, that might just be opening the way to litigation or something.

Kor

 

[valkyrie013]

A good amount of people just wanted to travel with there pets in the cabin with them, other than having them down below and PAYING for them to travel.
So, basically, some people who thought they could game the system ruined it for everybody else. As always.

As for documentation, To me, I think, etc. that if a person has some type of disability that requires a service animal that the person is under a doctors care of some sort, even if its a family medicine doctor that knows of the problem. They could then sign off on any paperwork.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Hopefully this documentation requirement does not create an undue burden on passengers who require a service animal due to a visual impairment.

It is my understanding that most (if not all?) major guide dog schools in the US and Canada issue a photo identification card for the dog and the handler, to identify that the dog is a legitimate service animal. It is unfortunate that it doesn't sound like this ID card will be sufficient to fulfill the documentation requirement.

 

[Malicia]

I forget which airline it was but I saw a documentary which showed someone onboard a commercial aircraft and they had a small horse with them in the cabin. It didn't seem the safest thing to do because if there was an emergency the animal would probably panic and put passengers lives at risk. It's a scenario you hope never happens of course but allowing animals in the cabin seems to be contradicting aviation safety. I can't imagine the disruption they could cause in an emergency while passengers are following the evacuation process.

 

[Mojochi]

It is unfortunate that it doesn't sound like this ID card will be sufficient to fulfill the documentation requirement.

Now I'm thinking they might have a handle on it, & that the real distinction here is the performance of tasks, of which accreditation in sight guidance, hearing, or mobility service would easily apply. I'd think such ID cards or other documentation of qualifications would suffice to meet the DOT form requirements. I might even hazard a guess it's something these folks have already been providing under these circumstances.

Where I get foggy is the distinction between psychiatric service animals & emotional support animals, which on the surface seem almost like they apply to the same kinds of potentially clinical issues, depression, anxiety, & PTSD etc... What I'm gathering is the distinction is whether the animals (specifically only dogs qualify) are legitimately trained in task performance & behavioral recognition.

Psychiatric Service Dogs & Emotional Support Animals: Access to Public Places & Other Settings | Nolo

It's just such a gray area though, in that one task would be to interrupt destructive or detrimental behaviors, of which I could imagine social interactions that go badly might qualify, which could be iffy, to say the least. I guess I just don't know enough about what specifically these dogs are tasked to do, but I assume it's obviously more than just relaxing/comforting these people during such episodes, otherwise that IS just emotional support, to some way of thinking.

I really wonder if a person in such a condition is ok to be without human guardianship... if a dog would be sufficient substitution. It's kind of hard to be knowledgeable about this, unless it's you or someone in your sphere going through it

 

[Marc]

It is my understanding that most (if not all?) major guide dog schools in the US and Canada issue a photo identification card for the dog and the handler, to identify that the dog is a legitimate service animal. It is unfortunate that it doesn't sound like this ID card will be sufficient to fulfill the documentation requirement.

In Ontario you can get a card from the government that certifies the dog is a legitimate guide dog (send in the paper work detailing the dogs certification etc, a photo and the province sends out the card).

At present there's no such coverage for therapy dogs/emotional support animals and that's a major issue and it's very easy for people to buy a vest of the internet and claim their dog is there for emotional support. Plus for there most part there's no accredited training. These people can make it hard for people who have genuine emotional support dogs (such as veterans who PTSD dogs that have been professional trained and funded through groups like Rotary).

Through her work, my wife has had to deal with people on both sides.

 

[Timewalker]

Hey, thanks for the info @Kor. That makes things much clearer.
Trained & documented as serving a legitimate funtion in some health/disability capacity. "It makes me feel better" doesn't seem all that legitimate to me.

If someone is incapable of functioning in a public environment without the presence of an animal to maintain them emotionally, then perhaps an animal isn't enough, & that individual should be monitored by a person trained to look after them.

I can't think of any condition that would make a person medically compromised emotionally, where it would be otherwise entirely manageable just because they had some random critter around, to ease them emotionally. That's an iffy prospect, to say the least, & a person who needs guardianship, IMHO

Wow. So you have no understanding that some people have experienced trauma so severe that animals help them cope more than humans?

I agree that not just any animal can be legitimately considered an emotional support animal, but to dismiss everyone who needs one with "they obviously need a human" means that you're making a hell of an assumption about someone whose medical or psychiatric history you don't know.

 

[Mojochi]

but to dismiss everyone who needs one with "they obviously need a human"

In my defense, the context of what I said wasn't specifically that. ^

If someone is incapable of functioning in a public environment without the presence of an animal to maintain them emotionally, then perhaps an animal isn't enough, & that individual should be monitored by a person trained to look after them.

The entire context of that statement pertains to persons with stability issues in public places (like airplanes) wherein interaction with other humans &/or stressful circumstances is highly probable.

Let it be known, I am not dismissing the value of emotional support animals, or even any domestic animals at all, as any of them have been shown to have emotional, psychological, & even physiological benefits

However, this is a topic about bringing said animals into public places they'd normally be prohibitted from &/or problematic in, such that if the people who need them might not otherwise be able to cope, without them being unsuitably brought there, then the mere presense of their animal, that isn't trained for a specific purpose regarding its owner, offers little aid to the rest of us who are present. Speaking for myself here, it would be more assuring if that person had more to keep them in check than just an animal that's comforting them.

It's just a personal opinion, & I'll freely admit, not a medically trained one, & if it was offensive in someway, how I expressed it, then I apologize, & will attempt to be more considerate when similarly doing so in the future

 

[Timewalker]

In my defense, the context of what I said wasn't specifically that. ^
The entire context of that statement pertains to persons with stability issues in public places (like airplanes) wherein interaction with other humans &/or stressful circumstances is highly probable.

Uh-huh

Let it be known, I am not dismissing the value of emotional support animals, or even any domestic animals at all, as any of them have been shown to have emotional, psychological, & even physiological benefits

However, this is a topic about bringing said animals into public places they'd normally be prohibitted from &/or problematic in, such that if the people who need them might not otherwise be able to cope, without them being unsuitably brought there, then the mere presense of their animal, that isn't trained for a specific purpose regarding its owner, offers little aid to the rest of us who are present. Speaking for myself here, it would be more assuring if that person had more to keep them in check than just an animal that's comforting them.

First off, the animal isn't supposed to "provide aid" to anyone but the person who owns it. I don't expect anyone else's guide dog or other service/support animal to be of aid to me, as it's not my animal, and I'm not entitled to expect such aid.

Why are you assuming that a human companion would be better? You do realize that many traumatized kids or adults with PTSD are scared to death of humans or don't respond well to humans, but feel safe with animals, right? As long as their support animal is with them, they're fine. Remove the animal and things can go south very quickly.

The fact is that you have no idea what may help a mentally ill or traumatized person, or someone with very specific disabilities or anxieties. While I wouldn't take my cat on an airplane (I don't fly and have zero trust that the airline would guarantee her safety, based on the horror stories I've read about cats and dogs who die due to the negligence and sheer stupidity of airline employees and policies), she is necessary for my mental health and I am beyond unimpressed with anyone who thinks they have the right to contradict me on this.

It's just a personal opinion, & I'll freely admit, not a medically trained one, & if it was offensive in someway, how I expressed it, then I apologize, & will attempt to be more considerate when similarly doing so in the future

I dislike the word "if" in apologies, as it doesn't make them seem sincere. Yes, it was offensive, no "if" about it. But I'm glad you realize this and will try to do better in future.

 

[Mojochi]

I was asked a question & accused of insincerity. I'm going to carefully & judiciously attempt to address both, because it's not my intention to stir up dischord here over this.

First off, the animal isn't supposed to "provide aid" to anyone but the person who owns it. I don't expect anyone else's guide dog or other service/support animal to be of aid to me, as it's not my animal, and I'm not entitled to expect such aid.

However, there are expectations of trained service animals that represent the welfare of the public wherein they'll be present. In that sense, their actions & presense is in aid of their surroundings. They are service animals & part of their service is being amongst us, & representing certain interests of ours as well

Why are you assuming that a human companion would be better?

I didn't say companion. I said guardian, as it relates to the above stated public welfare, & I did so because, by my way of thinking, an untrained domesticated animal represents an insufficient safeguard between the public at large & someone who faces the potentiality of not being able to function in a public space.

Someone or something with training to handle it ought to be present. Even a verified psychiatric service animal represents a better prosect, in that scenario, than a basic animal present for just emotional support.

I'll add that by enacting these new regulations regarding emotional support animals, without specifically addressing it, the DOT is kind of agreeing with that, which is why I brought it up. One could interpret them this way. What they are saying is not just about the people who were abusing the previous system, but also those that are in use of it.

There are people in legitimate need who will be affected by this change, & I'm just trying to pinpoint the meaning of it all, & whether I agree with it... which I kind of do, for the reasons I've stated.

I dislike the word "if" in apologies, as it doesn't make them seem sincere.

It doesn't make it less sincere. "If" reflects that it might not have been clear to that individual how what they expressed was offensive. I'm allowed to occasionally be ignorant of people's feelings, at which time I'll tend to reflect that unawareness in my language, by saying "if I was". I can't see how that should be interpreted as less sincere, when all it really is, is more specific

 

[Timewalker]

I was asked a question & accused of insincerity. I'm going to carefully & judiciously attempt to address both, because it's not my intention to stir up dischord here over this.
However, there are expectations of trained service animals that represent the welfare of the public wherein they'll be present. In that sense, their actions & presense is in aid of their surroundings. They are service animals & part of their service is being amongst us, & representing certain interests of ours as wellI didn't say companion. I said guardian, as it relates to the above stated public welfare, & I did so because, by my way of thinking, an untrained domesticated animal represents an insufficient safeguard between the public at large & someone who faces the potentiality of not being able to function in a public space.

Someone or something with training to handle it ought to be present. Even a verified psychiatric service animal represents a better prosect, in that scenario, than a basic animal present for just emotional support.

I'll add that by enacting these new regulations regarding emotional support animals, without specifically addressing it, the DOT is kind of agreeing with that, which is why I brought it up. One could interpret them this way. What they are saying is not just about the people who were abusing the previous system, but also those that are in use of it.

There are people in legitimate need who will be affected by this change, & I'm just trying to pinpoint the meaning of it all, & whether I agree with it... which I kind of do, for the reasons I've stated.
It doesn't make it less sincere. "If" reflects that it might not have been clear to that individual how what they expressed was offensive. I'm allowed to occasionally be ignorant of people's feelings, at which time I'll tend to reflect that unawareness in my language, by saying "if I was". I can't see how that should be interpreted as less sincere, when all it really is, is more specific

M-kay... about the issue of apologies (and imagine me saying this in a level tone of voice, not shouting, as I am attempting to explain this to you). When I make it clear that I found something offensive, the appropriate response from the person who offended is not to get hypothetical about it and claim not to be sure that offense was given. Just take the other person's word when they say they were offended. You don't get to decide if the person to whom you're speaking is offended. They get to decide. There is no acceptable way to shoehorn the word "if" into an apology.

About the animals and people and your phrasing that vulnerable people will not be able to function... it honestly sounds as though you expect them to become violent, and therefore need a human to protect all the bystanders from this awful, violent, vulnerable person.

I'm not saying that people who suffer from PTSD never get violent if they're triggered. Some do. But many others just want to hide, to get away from other people or whatever the trigger was. They are not necessarily anyone who will harm others, and while humans may scare them, an animal may be all that will calm them.

 

[Mojochi]

it honestly sounds as though you expect them to become violent, and therefore need a human to protect all the bystanders from this awful, violent, vulnerable person.

That's an assumption

There is no acceptable way to shoehorn the word "if" into an apology.

Disagree