
Pets Allowed: Why are so many animals now in places where they shouldn’t be? - wallflower
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/20/pets-allowed
======
curiouscats
It is sad how we allow rude people to get away with selfish behavior and make
life for difficult for everyone else. Doing so encourages rude people to be
even more selfish and we get the kind of behavior you see discussed in the
article.

Addressing the issues directly is often challenging. That is my guess on why
we allow degenerate behavior to impose costs on others until it reaches
epidemic proportions when we finally attempt to address it.

It also encourages people to isolate themselves in enclaves where people that
share certain expectations of behavior can shut out others and deal with those
that are at least somewhat considerate of whatever behaviors the group cares
about.

Allowing the rudest people to abuse society degrades the public square and
tears at the benefits that can strengthen the social contract. Sadly it seems
to be a pretty dominate trait in our society these last few decades and it
seems likely to just keep getting worse. Hopefully I am wrong.

~~~
_almosnow
Right on spot.

My personal opinion: I don't have nothing against dogs but I hate to hear them
barking. I know that you can't completely control that but way many owners do
not teach manners to their dogs and they are barking all the time.

Now before someone says "what's up with this guy expecting manners from dogs"
I actually adopted two dogs last year and without prior experience I educated
them really well. Now I'm pretty sure that a messy dog is absolutely the fault
of the owner's behavior.

And you're right about the social contract. The damage that irresponsible
owners are doing to society far extends the trivial situation of "that dog is
making a lot of noise"; that thing easily becomes a "I hope the owner gets it
back" and those collective feelings fuel a more hostile society in general.

~~~
DannyBee
As someone else said, different breeds are very different in behaviors, and
it's not as simple as you make it out in any way, shape, or form.

~~~
fourstar
A bad dog is the fault of a bad owner. You should try watching Cesar Millan
sometime.

~~~
Alupis
It's not about "bad dog" or "good dog", it's "your dog doesn't belong in the
grocery store sniffing the lettuce I'm trying to buy", or "your dog doesn't
belong in the clothing store shedding hair all over the pants I'm trying to
buy".

Neither are things that a "good dog" wouldn't do or a "bad dog" would, they're
both natural things that the dog can't help... ie. it's not the dog's fault
it's shedding.

The problem is the owner that invites the situation.

It's just plain rude for the owner to think everyone else has to put up with
their animal. I love animals, always have (since I was a kid I've never not
owned a cat or dog, or both, sometimes multiples of both), but I would never
think it sane to force my animal upon others, especially at a store.

------
stolio
For reference it costs about $25,000 over a period of 6 to 9 months to train a
service dog. If you see somebody with a service dog it's because they
absolutely _need_ it.

There are waiting lists, background checks, interviews, even the owners
themselves are trained. There is nothing in the process of getting a service
dog that is taken lightly.

 _EDIT: 6-9 months may be on the low side for training a service dog. This
place does 9-12 months not including the initial physical /behavioral testing:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Service_Dogs#Training](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Service_Dogs#Training)
_

~~~
ryen
Are you referring to service dogs that help the blind? Or those that offer
emotional support? Clearly there is a difference in training.

~~~
stolio
I'm referring to service dogs for severe disabilities: multiple sclerosis,
muscular dystrophy, traumatic injuries from war, things like that.

The "Emotional Support Animals" referenced in the article certainly are not
receiving the training of a full-blown service dog.

------
kendallpark
Unlike the Emotional Support Animals, service animals have to undergo a large
amount of training and certification in order to be considered as such. This
ensures that they are well behaved in situations where animals would not
normally be allowed (like airplanes).

This is very unfortunate for those with disabilities that really do need
service animals. I'd put the ESA-abusers in the same class of people that use
their relative's handicapped parking permit to get a better parking spot.

EDIT: Furthermore, there are only two species of animals that can be
recognized as a service animal: dogs and miniature horses. There doesn't seem
to be a species restriction on ESAs.

~~~
servicepups
There are a limited number of handicapped spots. Not so with ESA dogs. Though,
I'm very very careful to make sure mine isn't a pain in the ass, and not
everyone goes to such lengths.

~~~
stolio
False. Society has a certain amount of patience for people taking their dogs
everywhere, it's not unlimited. Not everybody likes dogs, some people have had
traumatic experiences, some people are allergic, there are health codes to
worry about, etc. The more people take their ESA's around, which inevitably
causes problems, the lower that level of patience becomes.

I'm all for ESA advocates getting together and coming up with a system to
regulate them and ensure it's low impact, but printing off certificates from
the internet isn't going to cut it.

------
SwellJoe
I almost never mind as long as they are well-behaved. Just like kids. If your
dog or your kid is making noise and stinking up the place, I don't much like
it. Otherwise, why would I care? They're cute and funny (dogs moreso than
kids), and they have shared human spaces for thousands of years.

I purposely live in places that are pretty lax about stuff like that, and one
of the things I liked least about Silicon Valley is how horribly dog-hostile
the housing market there is, though once you've got housing, there are, at
least a few patio-equipped restaurants and coffee shops that are dog-friendly
(not on par with an actual dog-friendly city like Austin, but liveable).

~~~
ssully
I am not sure if you read the article, but it goes far beyond dogs. It's about
people abusing the concept of an emotional service animal. People do it to get
their pets to fly free as well as other things. The main portion of the
article is about the author seeing how far she can go by claiming random
animals are ESA's for her. She used turtles, snakes, pigs, alpacas and a few
others successfully.

I am a dog lover. I own one dog and plan to adopt more in the future. But it's
pretty ridiculous that people take advantage of this. Not everyone is a dog
person, let alone comfortable with the number of animals this women used as
ESA pets. It's unfortunate that there are actually people at such a state
emotionally where they don't want to leave the house unaccompanied by their
pets, but it's not exactly fair for everyone else who now has to potentially
put up with their animal.

~~~
servicepups
I think at the end of the day it should be about discretion. A store should be
able to say "oh sure, Fido is awesome" and "uh, no, he ate my childs arm last
time, fuck off Marty" without any worries. Banning animals in places that
serve food city wide is quite silly. Let the stores set their own rules. I'd
love a coworking cafe that charged by the hour and let my dog run around.

~~~
ssully
I agree completely! Widespread ban is silly, but so is a certificate that
allows people to basically bring their animals where ever they want.

I have been to plenty of stores and restaurants that are dog friendly(some go
so far as to have water bowls and treats around the establishment for them).
It's neat and people going there know exactly what they are getting into. If I
was at a movie theater and someone has a dog that freaks the fuck out every
time there is ambient animal noise in a scene then I am not going to be happy.
I have no expectations of any animals being at my local AMC theater, I don't
see why a $200 dollar certificate allows that.

------
servicepups
Confession time. I have an Emotional Support Dog that flies with me for free.
The certificate cost $250 per year (or rather, the airlines require a
prescription letter dated within 1 year of your flight). I obtained it without
lying. I answered every questions honestly, though I am capable of flying
without my dog. Yes, I have anxiety, like any person. Yes, my dog makes me
feel better, like (I assume) anyone with a dog. Boom, certificate.

Technically this means I can bring my dog literally anywhere, but I only use
it for flying. When on the train, the dog resides in a backpack that meets the
"carrier" qualification. I don't take her in restaurants or movie theaters
like a huge douche.

Why do I think it's OK? Well, it's a long list. First, the airlines will not
allow dogs over 17 pounds as carry-on, even in a carrier. They won't let you
buy an additional seat for the dog, even in a carrier. 18lbs = under the
plane. 2 hours early, dog fucking terrified, so you probably have to Benadryl
the pup, and they've been known to freeze to death under there. Nope Nope
Nope.

This all makes no sense. If I buy a second seat, the size of the dog should
not matter. Tiny dog in carrier is just as loud as big dog in carrier.

Toddlers fly for free and scream like fucking maniacs. 5 year olds buy a seat
and scream and play iPad games on full volume.

My dog sits underneath the seat in front of me and doesn't move. I've had a 2
hour flight where people in my row did not know a dog was on the plane until
we got off.

My dog's extremely well trained. She doesn't have breakfast on flight days,
and I feed her a few ice cubes so she isn't crazy thirsty the whole trip. No
chance of a mid-aisle poop, any more so than the old lady two rows up might.
She doesn't bark, etc.

I do get that it's hard to have rules such as "your dog can fly with you if
they aren't a huge fucking pain".

Two years ago tons of dogs were flying for free. Now you have to pay an extra
$50 to have your doctor answer calls from the airline to confirm, and it's
back down to where I rarely see another dog in the airport.

~~~
hbosch
> Why do I think it's OK? Well, it's a long list. First, the airlines will not
> allow dogs over 17 pounds as carry-on, even in a carrier. They won't let you
> buy an additional seat for the dog, even in a carrier. 18lbs = under the
> plane. 2 hours early, dog fucking terrified, so you probably have to
> Benadryl the pup, and they've been known to freeze to death under there.
> Nope Nope Nope.

Have you considered getting a dog sitter, or pet hotel?

------
swatow
The key point here is that the government forces businesses to accommodate
Emotional Support Animals through the Fair Housing Act, the Air Carrier Access
Act and the Americans with Disability Act. This is not an issue of modern
society not being able to control assholes. It is a matter of government
legislation intended to protect the rights of disabled people, being
(allegedly) misused. The difficulty in drawing this line directly brings into
question whether the government should be forcing businesses to accommodate
people with disabilities.

~~~
mwfunk
IMO the difficulty in drawing the line suggests that the existing laws aren't
quite there yet and some refinement is probably needed. I'm sure that sounds
like a really boring, milquetoast opinion to a lot of people but that makes a
lot more sense to me than using ambiguous or annoying ESA laws as Exhibit A
for why the government shouldn't be allowed to force businesses to accommodate
the disabled.

~~~
swatow
Are you really disagreeing with me? I simply read an article, and noted that
the real issue was the government intervention, not private businesses
inability to make good judgments, or individuals lack of restraint in
assholish behavior. I didn't list this as "Exhibit A" I just noted that if
we're talking about this article, this is the main issue.

~~~
jrock08
The problem with a "screw the government intervention" mindset is that
wheelchair bound people make up a significant minority, so I won't say no one,
but a vanishingly small number of businesses would care if they moved to a
non-ADA compliant building. To be a bit flip, playhouses and theaters with
their generally elderly patrons, and wheelchair stores are the only ones I can
think of. So yes, this is a place that government intervention is necessary.
Specifically, if you look at many old buildings built pre-ADA (1990) you'll
find a disturbing lack of accessibility.

It's worth discussing whether the government should ban dogs from businesses
that serve food. And it's worth discussing whether the regulations which
essentially prevent businesses from validating a service animals papers (so to
speak) should be relaxed. However, it seems that it's really a lack of
understanding of the law when it comes to the difference between a trained
service animal and a companion animal, not horrible government intervention.

------
DAddYE
Dog owner and cat owner here (I love them!) but my question is, why do we
needs pets at all? Is it right to put a bird in a cage or a cat in a small apt
or having a dog and bring him out just 3 times a day? Why we are so selfish to
prevent birds from flying or cats from hunting? Should we rethink in general
about the pet in general?

~~~
enneff
Certainly, yes. Most people don't treat their pets properly.

If you have a dog you should have it with you all the time; they're pack
animals and get anxious and neurotic when left alone. This means there are
very few lifestyles that lend themselves to dog ownership. Farmers tend to
make great dog owners, because the dog is fully integrated with the lifestyle.

The social problem is that a lot of pet owners conflate the needs of their pet
with their own personal rights. "I own a dog," and "Dogs need to be with their
owners," therefore "I should be able to take my dog with me everywhere." No,
you should have to stay with your dog in an appropriate environment. If you
don't live in such an environment, don't own a dog.

~~~
ryanjshaw
> they're pack animals and get anxious and neurotic when left alone.

Get a second dog.

> No, you should have to stay with your dog in an appropriate environment. If
> you don't live in such an environment, don't own a dog.

How do you know dogs prefer to be put down than occasionally left to chill
home alone?

~~~
enneff
The alternative is not putting them down, but rather to stop breeding them.

Also "occasionally left home to chill" does not describe a typical domestic
dog's life. More like "left at home all day, five days a week."

~~~
lazythrowaway
Dogs breed themselves just fine - ever been to a shelter?

~~~
enneff
They breed because irresponsible people (breeders and owners alike) let them
breed.

------
wyager
Another example of well-intentioned laws (the ADA and associated acts, in this
case) having unfortunate semi-predictable side effects.

When you muddy the legal waters, you make it very difficult for your average
Joe, who has no legal training, to protect themselves from legal abuses like
those demonstrated in the article.

You're not going to stand up to assholes if you're afraid you might get sued
for discrimination.

------
tallanvor
I look at this from a slightly different perspective... Why shouldn't animals
(mainly dogs, really) be allowed in many of these places, assuming they are
well behaved?

When I lived in the UK, you would often see a dog or two in pubs or outside
areas of restaurants. Even occasionally in the grocery store (they were
smaller ones, though, and always in a cart). There was never any commotion
over them.

In Norway, dogs aren't even allowed in the outdoor area of restaurants unless
the waiters are willing to look the other way. The same goes for pharmacies
and grocery stores (some grocery stores look the other way if you are carrying
the dog). The explanation is always that the Norwegian food authority (which
also has jurisdiction over pets, for some odd reason) bans them because people
might have allergies.

I think Norway is an example of taking things way too far. Why not allow the
shop owners to decide for themselves whether they are more interested in
catering to dog owners or people who might be allergic? People with allergies
have to worry no matter what, because a service dog is still allowed in, so
they have no guarantee of not encountering a dog, and if they have a severe
allergy, the dog hair on my clothes could be enough to set off an allergy
attack (if it isn't, my dog probably won't cause the person any problems
unless she jumps on them, which I always do my best to prevent).

In the end, people need to stop abusing the system, but the system needs to be
relaxed to allow more flexibility.

~~~
eloisant
Unfortunately it seems that, especially in US, most problems end up an "us vs
them" problem. People pick sides and do whatever it takes to win battles.

For example I'm baffled to know that in US, some "pet forbidden" apartment
buildings exist. Come on, people not allowed to have pets at their own house??

~~~
JimmyM
This is also the case in the UK.

Here in the UK, in general (I don't know about the US), renting a property
allows you the right to just about live there, grudgingly, and it is
definitely NOT your house or home.

This is true more of the lower end of the market than the higher.

~~~
ZoFreX
Although a lot of listings say "no pets allowed" in the UK, many will let you
have a pet if you ask (if it's a large pet they're likely to ask for a higher
deposit fee, but that seems fair enough).

------
vmarsy
tl;dr: Emotional-support animal (E.S.A.) are not allowed in places they
shouldn't be. Exceptions are:

>The rights of anyone who has such an animal are laid out in two laws. The
Fair Housing Act says that you and your E.S.A. _can live in housing that
prohibits pets_. The Air Carrier Access Act _entitles you to fly with your
E.S.A. at no extra charge_ , although airlines typically require the animal to
stay on your lap or under the seat—this rules out emotional-support
rhinoceroses. Both acts stipulate that you must have a corroborating letter
from a health professional.

So anywhere else these animals are it is not legal. It is different for
service dogs that are trained for a specific purpose (i.e. blind people's dog)

> They defend the practice by saying [...] that Europeans gladly accept dogs
> everywhere.

I'd love to see them trying it in Europe :)

However, here in the US I've never seen animals in uncommon places, is it
really a trend ?

~~~
mc32
Somewhere someone mentioned that normal pets are not allowed on planes unless
you pay more but if you get your pet labeled emotional support then its free
AND they mentioned getting that classification is easy and people abuse it to
get a break...

~~~
vmarsy
... this is just sad to abuse it like this. I feel sad for people who _really_
needs their animals for this particular reason.

Some people are allergic to some type of animals though, how do you handle
that?

If I happen to sit next to a pet owner, can I claim that I'm allergic to it
and this is a threat to my well being?

~~~
vitd
> Some people are allergic to some type of animals though, how do you handle
> that?

The same way people allergic to other things handle it. They do their best to
avoid it and they keep an epi-pen on themselves in case they're accidentally
exposed.

I was once at the Los Angeles airport, and a fellow passenger walked up to the
counter and told the person there that they have an airborne peanut allergy,
and to please announce that nobody in the concourse could eat nuts. The person
behind the counter did so, but realistically, this did very little. Between
the vast majority of people ignoring most announcements, and the literally
thousands of people per hour coming and going from other areas in the airport
and planes, there was no way you could keep everyone in the area from eating
peanuts. It's on the person with the allergy to make sure they can safely go
wherever they're going. You can't expect the rest of the world to magically
know, or comply with procedures for your particular issues.

------
cpkpad
As someone with both allergies and a child with life-threatening allergies, I
have noticed this trend and find it disturbing. There are stores I cannot go
to anymore because of this sh*t. That's about 5% of the population and rising.

------
pakled_engineer
I hate the now common occurance of the store and office dog, which is always a
yapping tiny viscious ball of fur that immediately runs at you barking when
you walk in. Leave precious at home so I can negotiate a sale without the
sound of endless barking drowning out our conversation.

Get a big fat store kitty and buddy will lie in the window all day quietly if
you must surround yourself in animals.

I also didn't realize how much people from the middle east despise dogs,
there's stores some of my Kuwaiti and Saudi friends won't go into because
theres a dog running around, and they consider dogs unclean barn animals. They
won't even go into a coffee shop if somebody is in the line with a dog as they
expect that place is unhygienic.

------
cft
because there are fewer and fewer children.
[http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/05/us-birth-rate-hits-all-
tim...](http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/05/us-birth-rate-hits-all-time-low-
total-fe)

~~~
dghughes
>1.86 babies, well below the 2.1 needed for a stable population

Should it not be 3 babies or over? Maybe my lack of statics knowledge is my
problem.

But if two parents have two kids that's zero population growth if they have
three kids that means they've replaced themselves plus added one more person
to create population growth.

~~~
dsymonds
"stable" here means zero population growth over the long term, which actually
requires a little above 2 per couple to account for people who die before
being old enough to parent children. 2.1 is the common approximation for that.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
But people live after they reproduce. Having 2 children, and every 2 in the
next generation have 2 more, etc, means population continues to grow. A steady
state is reached, but as lifespan increases so does population. The obvious
limit is, if lifespan is infinite, then 0 children is the only number that
permits a stable population.

~~~
TylerE
Eventually the older generations die. That stabalizes things.

------
neuronic
Just made an account to reply. I have absolutely nothing against dogs or other
pets whatsoever. Sometimes I expect to be sitting in the library or in a cafe,
usually a confined place, for a while. To do some work or chat with a friend
etc. The issue is, I am extremely allergic against dogs (only horses are worse
but I hope nobody will bring a horse into my go-to cafe).

So now somebody enters with their dog, lets it run around freely (!) and I
have nowhere to go. Dogs are about the only things that reliably induce
allergic asthma in me if exposure time is > 1 hour. So thankfully that rarely
happens. But I get immediate massive hayfever symptoms. Sneezing 8 times in a
row, runny nose like there is no tomorrow, itchy eyes, all that jazz.

I find it irresponsible of people to bring their pets into confined public
spaces such as cafes and even more so of the owners to allow it. I like dogs a
lot, sadly I cannot own one. But please don't bring it into a place like that
for more than a few minutes. That's just my perspective.

Same reason I hate subway musicians btw. I mean the one inside the trains. You
can't get away from them. You are forced to listen to them. Playing on the
street? Ok with me, I can keep walking. But doing it in the train is rude
beyond anything and I don understand why people put up with it.

------
smsm42
If so many animal companions visit places where they weren't allowed before,
and the fabric of the society shows no signs of collapse, maybe the problem is
not "cheating" but overabundance of restrictions? Maybe people are afraid of
other people's pets out of ignorance and lifting the veil of ignorance is a
good thing? There are, of course, bad apples - as there are among people. In a
restaurant I'd be more worried about a waiter not washing their hands after
visiting bathroom (the fact that there are placards saying they ABSOLUTELY
MUST DO IT everywhere is kind of unnerving - if they insist on it so much is
it the case that one reminder at the start of the employment is not enough?)
than about the quiet dog under the table on the other end of the room. There
are also things like poorly trained dog doing "what the dogs do" in the
airplane, and the owner not thinking about dog's needs on a 5-hour flight.
There are also sanitary and other concerns - e.g. in some places, it is
clearly not appropriate to come with animals (most of these places, though,
are not exactly open to public either). But I see no problem for a well-
behaved dog (or other like animal, of course bengal tigers require an
exception here) to accompany its owner to a restaurant or similar
establishment - provided they don't smell offensively, shed, make loud noise
or otherwise disturb people. Of course, the responsibility should be on the
owner and if the companion pet misbehaves or makes trouble, they both should
be out, but as a consequence of a problem, not as a pre-determined conclusion.

Our family has pets and I have witnessed how many establishments view pets
negatively - e.g. renting with a pet is a constant problem since many
landlords, both private and corporate, want nothing to do with it. I
understand why it may be (bad apples) but in my case it was just ignorance and
refusal to consider even the possibility that it would be OK.

So, I personally take an issue with the author conclusion that the only
sensible thing for a person with a pet is to "get lost". I think most people
she encountered actually did the sensible thing and accommodated their fellow
human being and her companion, however weird it may seem. And I'm sure it
didn't require any extraordinary effort, extraordinary cost or major
inconvenience - just being ready to tolerate something that is a bit unusual.

~~~
forrestthewoods
"and the fabric of the society shows no signs of collapse"

That's a remarkably high bar to not do something!

~~~
smsm42
There should be a high bar to for prohibiting people from doing something that
does not infringe anybody's rights.

~~~
forrestthewoods
I agree. I mean I am assuming your referring to my right to runa private
business and not allow animals on my property if I don't want them there. Yes?
That's the right to which you were referring? Ok good.

~~~
smsm42
I do not dispute the right of private business to not allow any animal, human,
plant, bacteria, archaea or space alien on their private properties. However,
these rights are routinely infringed right now, so if you want to stand for
them, please stand for them without exceptions. I.e. if the owner is the sole
authority in determining who gets into their property, they can refuse anybody
for any reason whatsoever, and no regulation or policy can stand in the way,
that should be the case and all regulation concerning any such limitations
should be removed. That's fine, consistent approach which has my full
sympathy.

On the other hand, if you allow exceptions, such as different handling of
"public places", even privately owned, if you accept regulation that limits
the exclusive authority of the owner to exclude anybody they wish for any
reason, then you have to be consistent and have some rules that would guide
such regulation, and then what would be your reason to exclude people with
(well-behaved) animals accompanying them, not infringing on anybody? "I don't
like them, and that's enough" wouldn't cut it anymore - not unless you agree
to go all the way. I would prefer the former approach, but it's not the world
we live in now, so either we strive for that world, or we go with one we have
now, but we can't do both at once.

Also, regardless of that, I think it is important for people to be a bit more
accommodating to each other even if nobody forces you to. Let's assume you
have full right to kick out every person with a dog out of your place of
business. Why should you? Do they make any trouble? Every one of them, always?
If not, why would you assume they are troublesome before any sign of trouble
appears? Why not instead show some kindness and politeness and give people and
dogs a chance to be good? If they don't, you can always kick them out later
(ok, on the plane you can't but that's rather exceptional situation, in most
situations resolution is very easy).

~~~
forrestthewoods
O_o

It's not, nor should it be, all or nothing. The default state is that you can
allow or not allow whoever or whatever you want. However there are a list of
classes that protected. Race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, and
a handful more [1]. Pets are not, and again should not be, a protected class.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class)

~~~
smsm42
Why choice of religion can be protected but choice of companionship can not
be? If one can define protected classes, why pet owners can't be protected? In
fact, ESA is doing just that - and the only claim of the article is that it's
too easy to get into the class. But why should it be hard?

~~~
forrestthewoods
Anything _can_ be protected. It's just a law. Protecting a class restricts the
rights of other people. We tend to prefer having more freedom and less
restriction. Therefore a law that limits freedom should only be passed after
carefully considering if it's worth it or not. Protecting people based on th
color of their skin? Worth it. Protecting someone's right to go anywhere they
want with their smelly pet? Not worth it.

------
gojomo
SFWeekly covered the similar proliferation of 'support animals' in San
Francisco back in 2009:

[http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/service-with-a-
snarl/Co...](http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/service-with-a-
snarl/Content?oid=2172980&showFullText=true)

------
cafard
Most interesting. I know a fellow who works in retail, and has done so for
many years. I remember from a brief bit of conversation a couple of years ago
that he must have been unclear on the distinction between service animals and
emotional support animals.

------
gadders
I can't even believe Emotional Support Animals are a thing. People are so
feeble.

To paraphase the saying, we will go out not with a bang but with a whimper,
when people have their ESA animal taken away from them.

------
littletimmy
To look at this from the perspective of animal owners: animals are not "pets"
to them, they're family. To deny them bringing a dog in an airplane is like
denying them bringing a baby in a airplane.

That argument cannot be randomly disregarded because it is a valid one. Dogs
bark, babies cry. Dogs are unhygenic, and babies are little balls of filth.

Why should a dog fly in cargo because you don't like a dog inside the
airplane? I don't like babies, does that mean we should put babies in a crate
in the cargo section?

~~~
tdkl
Pets != humans. There is no other perspective.

~~~
JimmyM
Yes there is.
[http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/Singer.pdf](http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/Singer.pdf)

~~~
NhanH
Did you read the paper? Because the paper doesn't contradict the claims that
"Pets != humans".

The argument that the paper made, and I quote "I argue that we should drop the
belief in the equal value of human life, replacing it with a graduated view
that applies to animals as well as to humans.", emphasize the first half of
the sentence (sidenote: the claim shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that know
about Singer's utilitarian stance, he's super consistent in being an
utilitarian :-) ). He isn't saying that pets is equal to human in moral
status, he's saying that the difference shouldn't be explained just by
species.

~~~
JimmyM
Oops.

I felt that the context of the claim "Pets != humans" meant that the commenter
was claiming more than just the bare bones of that statement.

I interpreted my parent comment as dismissing the grandparent comment by
saying that pets are not in the same 'moral class' as humans, without further
justification.

It was this (probably imaginary, I now realise) distinction that I was trying
to provide an alternative point of view for.

Sorry for attacking a straw man.

I have read Singer, yes.

------
wooster
Awhile back I was chatting with one of my friends who was working security at
the local Whole Foods, when a woman walked by the produce section literally
dragging her defecating dog through a pile of its own crap.

This is why pets aren't allowed in grocery stores. Yesterday, I counted 5 dogs
inside another local grocery store. Some of them may have been legitimate
emotional support dogs (although none of them appeared to be service dogs),
but surely the others were just people behaving badly.

------
tdkl
> emotional-support animals

As an European: wat ?

~~~
briandear
Exactly. If I go to the local tabac/bar/newsstand and proclaim that I need an
emotional support animal, I'd be laughed out of the country. Or, more likely,
they'd pour me a Pastis and tell me to find a woman.

------
cm2012
My god, the author comes as annoying. Something about the voice, whether it's
pretentiousness or condescension, grates at my brain.

