
It’s Time to End the Scam of Flying Pets - rafaelc
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/04/opinion/flying-pets-scam-peacock.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
======
flowersoldier
I work at a healthcare facility, and the "emotional support" animals are a
huge problem. We only allow Service Animals in our building. I frequently ask
patients to keep their birds and even reptiles in the car. The ADA is very
specific in that they only recognize dogs and miniature horses as Service
Animals. It is worth noting that "emotional support" animals do not enjoy the
same protections that the ADA provides. It doesn't stop patients from claiming
that their emotional support animal is an actual Service Animal, but requiring
proof is a slippery slope toward a discrimination lawsuit.

~~~
ghthor
Seems ridiulous that asking for proof of a valid service animal is a slippery
slope. It seems welldefined, and a legit service animal would likely carry the
documentation with them.

~~~
fbdjskajxb
The ADA doesn’t create any standard for documentation. Where’s the definition?

------
T4NG
Lets be real, emotional support animals are a completely nonsensical burden
for everyone on the flight that outweighs what the passenger bringing it gets.
Its not justified to bring on a pet into a metal tin can that everyone now has
to deal with. This action isnt fair to people with allergies and phobias and
they cant get anything out of this aside from putting up with it.

~~~
sp332
1\. If you need a support animal, you should leave.

2\. If you're allergic to a support animal, you should leave.

Why is one of those more acceptable than the other?

~~~
throwawaysecops
Leave what? Leave a confined space that previously did not have animals in it?
Leaving because you are allergic to support animal is irrational because it
would have to happen first. Tube empty of animals already happened.

This argument requires holding support animal in tube is already foregone
conclusion.

~~~
sp332
Leave a confined space that has an allergic person in it? I'm not sure what
your example means because of course either one could be "first". Why should
one's disability (allergy) exclude the other passenger from a space?

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Why should one 's disability (allergy) exclude the other passenger from a
> space?_

Per my other comment [1], there is a muddling of terms going about. Service
Animals [2] are "individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the
benefit of an individual with a disability." They are well-behaved and
medically mandated. They are also legally protected by the ADA.

Emotional-support animals may have been medically prescribed but, critically,
are not necessarily trained [3]. Heinously, some people claim their pets are
emotional-support animals despite lacking the medical prescription. (They do
this to skip the fee airlines charge for transporting an untrained pet.)

Nobody is assailing Service Animals. Some are upset about emotional-support
animals. Most are upset about non-medically prescribed animals' owners
misrepresenting them as emotional-support or Service animals.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16311646](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16311646)

[2] [https://adata.org/factsheet/service-
animals](https://adata.org/factsheet/service-animals)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_support_animal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_support_animal)

~~~
sp332
No, we're talking about allergies and annoyance to other passengers. Those
aren't going to change based on how much the person needs them or what
paperwork they have.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _No, we 're talking about allergies and annoyance to other passengers_

We're talking about the relationship between two things. The rights of the
allergy sufferer versus the rights of the animal owner. The weight of the
latter varies with medical necessity and the risk the animal poses to others
on the plane.

Allergies are a medical condition. Service animals are trained animals serving
a medical need. Emotional-support animals also serve a medical need, but being
untrained come with a greater safety and comfort risk. Pets don't serve a
medical need; when represented as emotional-support animals, they're being
transported by someone who made a false and willful misrepresentation to the
airline for monetary gain.

------
tptacek
Counterpoint from Patrick from Popehat (on Twitter):

 _A lot of the people who need support animals are war veterans, people who
've endured horrific accidents, rape victims. I got my dog from a labradoodle
breeder who trains puppies to detect epileptic seizures. I used to mock these
people, when I was uninformed._

He's not rebutting the argument that people cheat. In fact, the more seriously
you take the idea of emotional support animals, the more repulsive the
cheaters probably are to you.

~~~
majormajor
It's like gluten-free stuff. If you have celiac and are sensitive to cross-
contamination, the more people hop on the trend and encourage places to chase
the trend in a sloppy way, the worse off you are. A small but vulnerable
number of people get screwed because a larger population piggybacks.

It seems like there might be an opportunity hiding in here for carriers to
offer certain animal-friendly routes, but there's probably still a lot of
liability issues to work out in there. I'd bet you could make it significantly
cheaper than pet boarding, though, for a lot of trips.

~~~
santoshalper
My one acquaintance with Celiac loves the gluten-free movement, in spite of
thinking it is bullshit. She loved bread, and can't fathom why so many people
are trying to glom on to this bandwagon, but she loves how many more
restaurants are available to her now.

Your point about sloppy trend-chasers is a good one, but at least so far,
she's not had an issue.

------
giarc
My first run in with this was on a flight from Charlotte to St. Maarten in the
Caribbean. There was a couple behind us with a "service dog" beagle. The guy
was 25 and in the international med school there. There were 2 other couples
on the flight, all in the same med school with "service animals". I watched
them while getting their luggage, their dogs were terribly trained and jumping
all over the place. I guess there is no requirement that a service animal is
well behaved (outside of seeing eye dogs etc), but it was so obviously an
attempt to get their animals to their temporary home for free. They all had
the same, fresh out of the package, eBay "Support Dog" vest.

If you have $100,000 to go to med school, you have $250 to fly the dog
properly.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> If you have $100,000 to go to med school, you have $250 to fly the dog
> properly.

If you have the money to fly to St. Maarten for vacation, you have the money
to fly the dog properly. Or the money to kennel it.

------
HarryHirsch
In Germany the dog pays half-fare and gets on the train:
[https://www.bahn.de/p/view/angebot/zusatzticket/hunde.shtml](https://www.bahn.de/p/view/angebot/zusatzticket/hunde.shtml)

The only question they'll ask at the station is: does Fluffy have a ticket.

~~~
gwbas1c
Germans tend to be better at following social rules than Americans. Far too
many Americans delude themselves to think that their dog is well-behaved in
public when their dog is really a nuisance.

Part of it comes from Germany's culture: It's publicly acceptable to scold
someone. In the US, it's considered rude for me to yell at an irresponsible
dog owner.

~~~
ckozlowski
I'll agree with this in part. (I lived in Germany for 3 years with a rescue
dog.)

I'll never forget throwing away glass on a Sunday (I missed the sign saying it
was forbidden) and getting stern looks by no less than three people, with one
leaning over her balcony railing to tell me not to do that.

...and while that seemed incredelous to me at first, the American, it wasn't
too hard to understand after a while that there was a culture of consideration
to others, and it was vigorously enforced by society. And it extended to dogs.

Mind you, their dogs still bark, people still screw up, and I encountered more
than one dog off-leash while mine still was....even though I knew it was
forbidden. No society is 100%.

But I never forgot that early incident, and after a few years I found myself
performing my own glare when someone fired up a gas lawnmower on a Sunday. =P
Mind you, I ran my vacuum on a Sunday, but so did my neighbors, and there was
an unspoken agreement that so long as it was done later in the day it was
fine.

I guess what I'm coming around to is this: It's a bit more than just "there
are social rules and we follow them." People are, by and large, considerate,
and they want others to be considerate it to.

My time over there was really positive, and I credit this as part of it.

------
deckard1
There is a fascinating series on Netflix right now called Animal Airport. It's
about animal control that takes place at Heathrow. It's a glimpse of what goes
on behind the scenes. At a few points, you'll see these "emotional support"
animals (which still have to go through proper procedures). It seemed to
mostly be all American travelers. You get the sense that the staff thinks they
are mostly bullshit, but this is a family show and they are a bit too polite
to say it in front of cameras. One of the dogs was a tiny little chihuahua (I
think), which was stretching credulity for me. This dog, like most small dogs
in such a situation, was already a nervous basketcase. How is that calming
anyone?

------
FussyZeus
This is basically a long form of "Shitty people ruin things for everyone."
Honestly if you've ever wanted to know why any given policy is in place that
seems obvious and common sense, it's these people screwing things up for
everyone else.

~~~
IntronExon
The corollary is that similar people are the reason for seemingly nonsensical
warnings on products. When your aftershave reminds you not to treat it as a
beverage, that’s because some knucklehead tried to chug it.

------
rflrob
I'm tempted to look at the "scam of flying pets" and think that instead the
solution is to liberalize policies on allowing pets, with the potential for
penalties for violators of the social order. The analogy that springs to mind
is "medical" marijuana or "medical" alcohol during prohibition [1]. Without
denying the genuine needs of some people, others "scammed" the system, finding
doctors who would say that yes, you do indeed need a prescription for whatever
it is that ails you. Many of the prescriptions were medically bogus, but the
behavior itself isn't inherently socially harmful. Switching to a system where
you punish bad behavior rather than the possibility of bad behavior has
generally been well regarded in places where these substances have been
legalized (opinions may vary, of course, but so far as I know, no state that
has legalized recreational cannabis has seen serious pushes to recriminalize
it), so why not do the same for pets.

If you had to put down a deposit to fly with a pet, but had it reimbursed
assuming good behavior, then you could ding the people whose pets get into
fights with service animals, defecate, etc, while allowing responsible pet
owners freer movement.

[1] [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/during-prohibition-
yo...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/during-prohibition-your-doctor-
could-write-you-prescription-booze-180947940/)

------
everdev
Pets in the cabin seems insane to me. I'm allergic to cats and can't imagine
the discomfort of cat dander circulating throughout the cabin.

Flying seems unpleasant enough with making it a petting zoo too.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _I 'm allergic to cats and can't imagine the discomfort of cat dander
> circulating throughout the cabin_

I'm allergic to cats. I'm also a former aerospace engineer. Cabin air is
completely refreshed about 20 times an hour [1]. I've sat next to a cat and
not noticed. They're in a carrier, too drugged or terrified to toss fur about;
quiet; and small. Zyrtec won't make the screaming baby any more pleasant.

[1] [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34708785/ns/travel-
travel_tips/t/a...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34708785/ns/travel-
travel_tips/t/airplane-air-not-bad-you-think/)

------
dionidium
One principle of politeness might be phrased as, "avoid (avoidable) behaviors
that create only benefits for me and only inconveniences for the people around
me."

Taking your dog on a plane fails this test. Sure, some people don't mind. I
_mind_. A lot. And so do a lot of other people. Bringing your dog on a plane
means either not realizing or not caring that you're creating such a large
disturbance for the rest of us, neither of which is a category to be proud of.

~~~
fbdjskajxb
Babies are even more disruptive, from my experience. If people hate traveling
with dogs or babies enough, they could pay for a more private form of
transport. It’s not worth the price to me.

Edited to remove option of banning the dogs (although, according to the story
it seems like the airlines are able to restrict which dogs are allowed?).

~~~
david-gpu
My son is almost two and has never met his grandparents, who live in another
continent. They are in poor health and can't travel themselves.

How do you suggest we deal with this? A boat would be far too slow, and a
private jet would be far too expensive.

In these circumstances, I will bring my toddler in the plane, try to keep him
quiet, and bring baggies with complimentary snacks and earplugs for the
passengers sitting next to us. I don't think I can realistically do more than
that.

What I'm not going to do is wait five years until the child is older, because
I have no assurance that my parents will be alive by then. Sorry if that
inconveniences you.

~~~
dionidium
While it's true that babies _are_ annoying, I subscribe to the (now apparently
radical) belief that human babies are in a category that grants them more
rights than pets. Travelling with a baby is sometimes unavoidable (or, as in
the case you mention, generates such an enormous personal benefit that it
outweighs the inconvenience to your fellow passengers).

It is _never_ necessary to fly with your dog uncaged in the main cabin. Ever.
Full stop.

~~~
waster
Except for service dogs.

~~~
dionidium
You'll recall that the article we're all responding to -- and the entire point
of this conversation -- discusses _abuses_ of the service dog requirement.

------
zeveb
I've long thought that the whole 'emotional support animal' term is not ideal:
after all, aren't any non-working dogs emotional support animals? I think
something like 'service animal' is more appropriate.

> Ultimately, I hope the Department of Transportation creates a fairly strict
> uniform rule for all airlines.

Why not let the individual airlines decide? Pet owners can choose to fly Pet
Airways, and everyone else can choose not to. It's not immediately obvious
that this is a case where there must be a uniform rule (although it would be
tricky if one had to switch carriers mid-trip).

> It’s true that some people honestly believe they have an emotional condition
> that an animal solves. But they are often confusing their preferences with
> actual medical needs.

That, I think, is a quote which aptly describes much of 21st-century American
society: a failure to recognise the difference between preference & reality.

~~~
chadash
> Why not let the individual airlines decide?

Airlines are free to allow pets aboard. But they've all made the decision not
to allow it, except for a fee (and even then, only for small animals that go
under your seat). Right now, the airlines are forced to allow emotional
support animals. I don't think many people would be against a pet friendly
airline. I think the issue is that the airlines don't _want_ to be pet
friendly (most likely they'd rather not deal with the hassle), but the law
requires them to accommodate trained service animals (e.g. seeing eye dogs or
dogs trained to detect imminent seizures), which most people probably don't
object to as well as emotional support dogs (which many people _do_ object to
because they feel that the system is being gamed)

------
anotherevan
While telling my kids about the ridiculousness of this story about an
emotional support peacock, and how awesome legitimate assistance and support
animals are, my daughter told me the story of Rojo[1] the therapy llama.

It was from a book she has called Unlikely Heroes[2] about awesome animals. A
very sweet story.

[1] [http://rojothellama.com/](http://rojothellama.com/)

[2] [https://www.workman.com/products/unlikely-
heroes](https://www.workman.com/products/unlikely-heroes)

------
cletus
This seems easy enough to solve: just charge people for an extra seat if
they're taking an emotional support animal.

Then of course have a (strict) policy where that fee can be waived in cases of
medical need.

------
sunstone
When you look at the current US President it's pretty clear that mutual trust
and commonsense, once the bedrock of the country, has long since been
displaced by every wo/man for themselves.

Largely this has been brought about by corporations first sending jobs
overseas with wanton enthusiasm and then splashing cash all over Washington to
influence government. Call it the paradox of thrift version 2.0.

------
rconti
So many complaints in the comments about being single and the burden of having
to find someone to care for your pet while you're out of town.

If you can't afford to maintain your pet, you can't afford a pet. Don't take
it out on the rest of us.

I often joke that I'm not responsible enough to own a dog, or that if I was
I'd just have kids. I can leave extra food for the cats and they handle
themselves for up to 5 days. If it's more than that, we find someone to check
in on them. The fix is not to socialize my 'problem' by finding a way to scam
on medical needs and gamble that nobody will challenge my 'medical condition'.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>If you can't afford to maintain your pet, you can't afford a pet. Don't take
it out on the rest of us.

Yes, but this logic is a slippery slope that drops off into a sewer depending
on how far you want to take it.

If you tell certain people that you don't own snow tires because you usually
commute via train and you drive maybe two days a year with snow on the ground
and they'll tell you you're a menace to society and if you can't afford to go
all out you shouldn't own a car at all.

Everything has trade-offs and I'm more inclined to say everyone else should be
thicker skinned rather than individuals should be better behaved. It's not the
individual's job to look out for everyone else. Bringing a pet or a crying
baby on a plane isn't a big deal even if it's a pain in the butt for everyone
else.

As much as people need to be considerate people also need to not be thin
skinned when others are inconsiderate.

That said, you'd better be pretty f-ed up in the head if you're bringing your
dog into the supermarket, on public transit, into Walmart, etc for "emotional
support".

Edit: Not that I know where the line should be drawn, just that it probably
should be drawn somewhere. Also revised some wording.

I should have known better than picking this example for this demographic.

~~~
geofft
> _If you tell certain people that you don 't own snow tires because you
> usually commute via train and you drive maybe two days a year with snow on
> the ground and they'll tell you you're a menace to society and if you can't
> afford to go all out you shouldn't own a car._

This seems reasonable to me, is this supposed to be some absurd conclusion? A
car that is out of control can easily kill people. If you don't have the
equipment to safely drive your car when there's snow on the ground, drive zero
days a year when there's snow on the ground. If you're risking other people's
lives because you want the convenience of driving a car, yes, you're a menace
to society.

> _As much as people need to be considerate people also need to not be
> snowflakes when others are inconsiderate._

Does the word "snowflake" have a coherent meaning any more? I thought the
original idea was that snowflakes were _unique_ , which means that as an
insult, it would be better placed against the person who's doing something
unusual compared to the rest of society.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>This seems reasonable to me, is this supposed to be some absurd conclusion? A
car that is out of control can easily kill people. If you don't have the
equipment to safely drive your car when there's snow on the ground, drive zero
days a year when there's snow on the ground. If you're risking other people's
lives because you want the convenience of driving a car, yes, you're a menace
to society.

People mostly adjust to the extra traction afforded by snow tires and behave
accordingly to maintain constant risk regardless of the conditions. More
traction doesn't help if your margin for error is close to constant. Same
problem with stuff like blind spot detection.

>Does the word "snowflake" have a coherent meaning any more?

Fixed the phrasing.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _People mostly adjust to the extra traction afforded by snow tires and
> behave accordingly to maintain constant risk regardless of the conditions_

The risk of over-steering appears to be compensated for with reduced crash
incidence and severity (at least for studded tyres) [1]. More to the point,
you changed your goalpost from "this is an unreasonable cost to demand for
safety" to "this isn't safe."

[1]
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457511003083)

------
chadash
From the text of the Air Carrier Access Act [1]

 _> 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). If no such
factors preclude the animal from traveling in the cabin, you must permit it to
do so. However, as a foreign carrier, you are not required to carry service
animals other than dogs._

Is anyone else annoyed that airlines are required [2] to allow people to take
an untrained emotional support pig on a flight unless they can show a specific
reason why it shouldn't be allowed on (and the burden of proof seems to be on
the airline)? Obviously, the way this law is written, it makes it a big hassle
for the airlines to deny travel to these animals, especially if the person
comes with documentation from a mental health professional (who they can find
online to give them a letter for $99).

In the case of a highly trained service animal (think seeing eye dog or a dog
trained to detect imminent seizures) I can understand why we allow them on.
Those dogs are incredibly well trained. As I understand it, very few dogs have
the demeanor to pass the training.

If you've got an animal travelling with you for emotional support reasons, we
should have a similar requirement for training. If your animal isn't trained
(and certified by a reputable organization) to behave around other people, why
should an airline be forced to accommodate you bringing your animal into a
confined and crowded space?

Our laws should force people claiming emotional support animals to have them
be trained and certified to behave well in a public space (service animals,
from what I've seen, already meet this standard) if airlines are going to be
forced to let them fly for free.

[1] [https://www.united.com/web/en-
US/content/travel/specialneeds...](https://www.united.com/web/en-
US/content/travel/specialneeds/disabilities/ACAA-Final-Rule.aspx)

[2] As far as I know, there's nothing preventing an airline from allowing
animals to fly for free, similar to how many hotels are pet friendly. Someone
could open an airline that's pet friendly and I'm sure there's a niche market
for it. But in my mind, unless there's a very compelling reason, we shouldn't
force airlines to allow animals on board for free. In my mind, highly trained
service animals have a compelling enough reason to force airlines to allow
them on board. Untrained emotional support animals don't.

------
canercandan
It's maybe time to start up a non specist animal friendly "for real" flight
company...

~~~
spinlock
This is basically southwest. Because you choose who you sit next to, people
with service animals board first then people who like dogs, etc... board and
sit next to them. It works really well.

~~~
DrScump

      people with service animals board first 
    

That would be an _incentive_ to bring inauthentic "service animals" along,
wouldn't it?

------
croisillon
Oftentimes I see people with a Superman t-shirt waiting to board at the
airport. Similarly to these birds, I wonder why they need a plane to fly.

------
doctorwho
Non-service animals, crying and seat kicking children, the sick, the morbidly
obese (if you spill over your assigned seat), smokers, people who wear too
much cologne/perfume, people who put their feet/knees on the seat in front of
them, snorers, stinkers, those allergic to peanuts and all other classes of
public irritants should have spots in a comfortable but separate cabin.

~~~
fenwick67
This separate but comfortable cabin already exists and is called "a commercial
flight", what you are looking for is a "chartered flight".

------
spinlock
The author has obviously never traveled with an emotional support animal. The
difference between how you are treated by TSA with an animal and without is
amazing. I travel with my dog and, as soon as TSA sees the vest, I am allowed
to go through the pre-check line (I do not have pre-check) so I don't have to
take off my shoes, etc... TSA is also much nicer to people traveling with
animals. Rather than the typical surly bullshit, they are nice and want to pet
your dog, etc...

So, if the author really thinks that animals are a bigger problem than TSA,
they are probably one of those people who "cheats" security by paying for pre-
check to avoid going through proper security. I am much more concerned with
how the incompetence and rudeness of TSA is being used to extract money and
personal information from travelers.

If airlines and airports want people to stop lying about the reason they are
brining their pets on the airplane, perhaps we should start by making TSA stop
lying about the benefit they provide. When we see TSA extracting billions of
dollars from taxpayers for security theater, it's easy to assume that the only
people still playing by the rules are suckers.

~~~
cptskippy
> So, if the author really thinks that animals are a bigger problem than TSA,
> they are probably one of those people who "cheats" security by paying for
> pre-check to avoid going through proper security.

As opposed to someone who brings an "emotional support" animal with them to
cheat their way through security?

The main problems I have with "emotional support" animals is their owners.
These people are usually inconsiderate of others and completely self centered.

I've witnessed on multiple occasions dogs shitting or pissing all over
commuter trains and their owners just hop off the train and leave it for
everyone else to deal with. You'll often see these people at the gate trying
to get priority seating by shoving their dog in the attendent's face while the
attendant is trying to help other passengers with legitimate needs. I've been
nipped by one of these dogs on a flight and the owner's response was "she
feels threatened by you." I suggest she might put the dog in her cage since I
can't move seats at which point she tried to have my seat moved by an
attendant.

~~~
spinlock
The fucked up thing is that if you put a muzzle on your dog so that they can't
bite anyone, people will treat you like you're traveling with a dangerous
animal.

~~~
cptskippy
That or they thing you're being abusive and cruel.

~~~
spinlock
I think I understand why dogs bite you.

~~~
cptskippy
What? Why is that?

~~~
spinlock
because you give people who would make sure they can't bite you a hard time.

~~~
cptskippy
I never said I did. I'm saying that when people put muzzles on their dogs they
get shamed by people who say it's cruel.

