
DoT proposes to narrow the definition of service animal on planes - prostoalex
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2020/01/22/department-transportation-proposes-ban-emotional-support-animals-planes/
======
rayiner
Misleading headline: [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/emotional-
support-pea...](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/emotional-support-
peacock-not-anymore-says-new-federal-airline-rule-117256)

> There is no federal ban. If Delta wants to allow a therapeutic wombat on
> board, Uncle Sam will not get in the way.

> If some airlines crack down, others can market themselves as pet-friendly.
> Rather than using the federal government to force airlines to allow these
> animals on board, we should trust airlines and passengers to find what works
> best through the marketplace.

~~~
avalys
Exactly. The current bullshit situation is due to a federal regulation that
requires airlines allow emotional support animals. This proposal would simply
eliminate that requirement.

~~~
zyang
I’m glad because people are abusing the system. I have a coworker that spent a
lot of money getting her dog trained and certified so she could bring it into
restaurants. All it does is tying up resources from people that actually need
service dogs.

~~~
Jamwinner
I wish we could persucute those who abuse the system. Hving my compassion
gamed for your furbaby makes me seethe.

------
awillen
Any change to this rule is welcome in my book. What really gets me is the
people who fly with dogs that are obviously terrified. Putting an animal that
isn't trained to handle airports and planes in that situation so you don't
have to be separated from fluffy is just cruel. Put your dog in boarding (or
find a pet sitter, etc.) when you go out of town. If you can't afford to do
the right thing for your dog when you travel, then you can't afford to travel.

------
BubRoss
Where did the emotional support animal term come from? That's what a pet is,
an animal you keep for emotional support.

~~~
Jamwinner
Its acutally a good question. I understnd it as a mis-wording of 'service
animal' in air-travel laws that a whole industry sprung up around to exploit.

------
CivBase
Relevant article from a few days ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22122890](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22122890)

------
unstatusthequo
My wife has severe anxiety flying. Having her dog is better than medicating.
People whose emotional support animals are not chill are the issue. Chill dogs
do not mean any breed or upbringing. It takes the right combination of proper
genetics and upbringing to have a dog that fits the bill. And one with a
strong bladder. We also are annoyed with those that abuse the system with
obnoxious yelpers who themselves are scared or anxious. The human should not
be the emotional support for the dog. And those people will ruin it for my
wife and others like her.

Also. I need to make another point. On no less than a dozen flights, we’ve
enlisted our dog to deal with small children who are losing their mind. Dog is
deployed, wailing stops, other passengers have literally cheered. Flight
attendants are so delighted we drink for free on the flight. End of flight dog
returns a hero. So, before we get the pitchforks our, consider how emotional
support dogs serve a purpose. Those with bullshit ESANS can stay away.

------
foreigner
This is a strangely one-sided article. Surely there are people who want the
definition of service animals to include more than just dogs - where's the
quote from them?

~~~
Jamwinner
Other than miniture horses, only dogs can be service animals. The other pets
are the problem being addressed.

