US Dept of Transportation moving for new regulations barring emotional support animals on aircraft and requiring proof of training for service animals

[StarGirl11]

I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand something definitely needs to be done about the owners that are using the ADA with animals in public places.

On the other what do you do about the people who spent the time and effort to train their own SDs? Is the certification going to possibly change due to this? Remember ADA doesn’t require SDs to be pro trained. And a lot of SD owners can’t afford pro trained because they are extremely expensive. What kind of certificate would be deemed acceptable?

And just a concern in general could this lead to someone trying deny an owner with an actual SD from flying? Because if you spend a few minutes on Twitter you’ll see accounts of SD owners having problems using Uber/Lyft because drivers won’t take them even though denial is actually breaking the ADA

 

[5kidsmommy]

We are at a point where people know that they won't be confronted and laws need to change. It's completely getting out of control. I say this as an animal lover.

 

[bcla]

I'm glad to hear this. I hope one day Disney World will do the same.

This can only be done because airline travel isn't subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Emotional support animals aren't actually covered under the ADA, so that could be a possibility. However, requiring service animals to have a specific certification isn't going to work. I'm sure there are people just buying service animal vests to bring their pets everywhere.

 

[DisLiss]

A dog is still a dog though. Most people I've seen with service animals (or any working animal) seems to understand that these animals still need to feel affection and not just be robots. I certainly wouldn't deliberately approach a service animal to pet it, but I've been there when my kid got interested seeing a dog (perhaps in training) where the handler said it was OK to pet it. I think it might even be part of their training to focus on the task at hand even when there are other people looking to pet the animal.

I've seen one dog that was trained to bring a woman home if she suffered a seizure and didn't wake up fully lucid. But at all other times this dog was absolutely a pet.

I totally agree! But my fear is that people won't stop to consider that the animal is doing a job and to ask first before interacting and to not interrupt the animal when actively working. I've been seeing more and more comments and videos recently about people with service dogs having those types of problems.
Mind you, I don't know that an airport or plane would be equally plagued by these kinds of issues. I admit that most instances I've heard or read about were in other locations.

 

[bcla]

I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand something definitely needs to be done about the owners that are using the ADA with animals in public places.

On the other what do you do about the people who spent the time and effort to train their own SDs? Is the certification going to possibly change due to this? Remember ADA doesn’t require SDs to be pro trained. And a lot of SD owners can’t afford pro trained because they are extremely expensive. What kind of certificate would be deemed acceptable?

And just a concern in general could this lead to someone trying deny an owner with an actual SD from flying? Because if you spend a few minutes on Twitter you’ll see accounts of SD owners having problems using Uber/Lyft because drivers won’t take them even though denial is actually breaking the ADA

Again, air travel isn't subject to the ADA. The most interesting thing is international air travel, where different rules apply. I've heard that some airlines apply US rules as long as it's a direct flight to/from the United States.

 

[VandVsmama]

FINALLY!

 

[bcla]

I totally agree! But my fear is that people won't stop to consider that the animal is doing a job and to ask first before interacting and to not interrupt the animal when actively working. I've been seeing more and more comments and videos recently about people with service dogs having those types of problems.

Sure. I saw a guide dog once where some people had no hesitation to approach it and pet it. And the dog frankly loved it, which I suppose can be an issue because it might prefer that to doing its job.

 

[KayaWildfire]

I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand something definitely needs to be done about the owners that are using the ADA with animals in public places.

On the other what do you do about the people who spent the time and effort to train their own SDs? Is the certification going to possibly change due to this? Remember ADA doesn’t require SDs to be pro trained. And a lot of SD owners can’t afford pro trained because they are extremely expensive. What kind of certificate would be deemed acceptable?

And just a concern in general could this lead to someone trying deny an owner with an actual SD from flying? Because if you spend a few minutes on Twitter you’ll see accounts of SD owners having problems using Uber/Lyft because drivers won’t take them even though denial is actually breaking the ADA

I have no issue with someone wants to train their own dog and does a good job. I don't think there should be a professional training requirement, I think something more along the lines of a test that the handler and dog take together(along the lines of the canine good citizen test) that can be used to issue licenses for dogs to be allowed in public areas. If they can behave in an appropriate manner, then they can be issued a license.
I do think there needs to be some sort of official licensing system so ride share owners can know they have a well behaved service animal in their cars, airlines can know the dog is vetted for behavior, etc. So no one with a legitimate animal is denied access.

 

[Kitty 34]

I will take my support camel back and stick with my teddy bear and blankie (which I still actually have in my cedar chest) .......definitely works for my grandbabies.

 

[Heather07438]

I won't discount legimate use of emotional support animals but it leaves a huge loophole for people who are just more comfortable taking their pet with them than leaving it home. Another incentive to exploit is where regular pets cost an extra fee but no charge is given for service animals.

If a service animal makes enough difference to your quality of life then it's worth the relatively small inconvenience of obtaining proper paperwork. I'm glad there's an attempt to address abuse.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

I have no issue with someone wants to train their own dog and does a good job. I don't think there should be a professional training requirement, I think something more along the lines of a test that the handler and dog take together(along the lines of the canine good citizen test) that can be used to issue licenses for dogs to be allowed in public areas. If they can behave in an appropriate manner, then they can be issued a license.
I do think there needs to be some sort of official licensing system so ride share owners can know they have a well behaved service animal in their cars, airlines can know the dog is vetted for behavior, etc. So no one with a legitimate animal is denied access.

I agree. Much like taking a driver's license test. It doesn't matter how/where you learn, as long as you can pass the test.

 

[John VN]

In agreement with implementation of strict enforcement being allowed regarding ESA exclusions.

Having family member's vehicles requiring a TAG (license plate) or Hanging Tag to park in spaces for better access to buildings, venues ---. why not an Authorized by State sewn on patch or little tag on collar that requires renewal just as a vehicle TAG.

 

[Bamaclan4]

I firmly believe in true service animals. But said animals should be professionally trained, like most truly needed ones are. These are the ones that their person or handler has certain expectations and guidelines for not to just let go to do as they please. If the person truly needs the animal and has to go through the channels and red tape to get a trained animal it would cut down on a lot of this. I also believe if it’s proven that a person is need of the animal that there should funds to pay for this, but only if it is proven to be necessary by a medical professional.

 

[ronandannette]

I would like to see some type of OFFICIAL regulation & licensing for ADA support animals (dog or miniature horse) that a business could ask to see to verify that the animal is truly a support animal. The license would not have to reveal anything about WHY the person needs the support animal. Just that it is an actual support animal.

Sorry, I just can't with all of it. My DS's university brought in a variety of animals to the "safe space" during finals. There were puppies, kittens, chickens and a horse. The point was for the students to interact with them and find which one was most comforting. It turned into a huge joke, and clearly was not medically necessary to support anybody. ENOUGH!!

I won't discount legimate use of emotional support animals but it leaves a huge loophole for people who are just more comfortable taking their pet with them than leaving it home. Another incentive to exploit is where regular pets cost an extra fee but no charge is given for service animals.

If a service animal makes enough difference to your quality of life then it's worth the relatively small inconvenience of obtaining proper paperwork. I'm glad there's an attempt to address abuse.

Paperwork or no, there has to be some limit. Support chickens are a bit of a trend right now. Filthy, smelly, disgusting chickens. This simply shouldn't be allowed anywhere in public, period.

 

[DisLiss]

On the other what do you do about the people who spent the time and effort to train their own SDs? Is the certification going to possibly change due to this?

I hope people who have already self-taught will be "grandfathered" in so to speak. I know that may sound contradictory to what I said earlier, but despite believing that some people do poor jobs of self-training, I think others do fine jobs, and I don't feel they should be punished for the actions of others. If the work they did was enough at the time that they did it, I'd rather let a few of the other folks make it through the loop hole undeservedly than to make life more difficult for someone who truly did exactly what they were supposed to do.

And again, I do like the idea of trying to fix the issue of people abusing the current laws and regulations in baby steps, because I feel that is easier for those in need of these services to handle, and those kind of changes are easier to observe and change again if it is determined that they are not working or are creating new problems. I always think it's better to try to solve an issue bit by bit rather than to say "This can't be solved." or to decide that any possible solutions must fix the entire problem immediately. That's not realistic and it it results in people arguing for years on end over the "perfect" solution. So I am glad to see them trying something. I hope they will pay careful attention to whether the changes cause harm to those in need of service animals, and that they will adjust to try to correct any such issues.

 

[SteveH]

I can only hope this happens and is expanded beyond airplanes, but I am doubtful that it will happen any time soon.

 

[Heather07438]

I won't discount legimate use of emotional support animals but it leaves a huge loophole...

Paperwork or no, there has to be some limit. Support chickens are a bit of a trend right now. Filthy, smelly, disgusting chickens. This simply shouldn't be allowed anywhere in public, period.

Yeah I'm not sure chickens are legitimate service animals either, lol. Or turtles, pigs, emus, koalas, ferrets or many others that have been used or considered. Some kind of criteria is necessary so it's only qualified animals specifically trained with people who can demonstrate significant improvement in quality of life when paired together.

If the abuse is as bad as I think that should cut the usage by more than half and keep the issue from growing. Most importantly cut out the people taking advantage who can't come close to proving an authentic need or efficacy.

 

[Colleen27]

Paperwork or no, there has to be some limit. Support chickens are a bit of a trend right now. Filthy, smelly, disgusting chickens. This simply shouldn't be allowed anywhere in public, period.

I agree there does need to be a limit. I'm not sure "dogs only" should be it. A number of kids we know from 4H work with an organization that uses rabbits as emotional support animals, and they're quite well suited for it. They don't need a lot of training, just good socialization, they're neat animals that are easily litter trained, they're quiet and they don't tend to cause disruption. I've seen them work wonders with kids with autism and major anxiety. But more and more, they're being excluded under rules aimed at people who want to call their chickens or peacocks or pigs "service animals", because it is easier to write a "dogs only" rule than to address the range of reasonable support animals.

 

[DisneyOma]

After being growled at by one dog on a flight, and having another one bark incessantly before boarding on another, I'd love to see this happen.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

I think airlines do need better ways than what they have now with handling ESAs. I understand that they can be very helpful for some people, but it's unfortunate that it sometimes causes issues for others. There have been several cases of people with severe allergies being told to leave the plane because the ESA took precedence. I haven't personally run into this issue yet, but I have allergies to cats and rabbits and it's gotten pretty severe the past couple of years. If there were a cat or rabbit on my flight and I didn't see them while boarding, there's a very good chance I'd be in bad shape part way through the flight with no way at that point to get out of the situation.

Unrelated to the above, we recently encountered a service dog at Walmart. My 4 year old is obsessed with dogs and we've taught him that if he sees a dog in public not to run up to it because they're working. As soon as the dog (some kind of lab mix, around 75 lbs probably) saw my kids, he started pulling at the leash, jumping up, and barking. The owner immediately engaged us in conversation talking about how the dog loves kids and told my son he could pet the dog after he asked. The dog was great with my son, licking him and wasn't at all aggressive, but was incredibly hyper, unlike other service dogs we've encountered. The owner (very talkative) mentioned how it was a diabetes dog for his wife and was around a year old and how they'd had a problem in the past with mgmt when the dog got loose and ran across the store barking at a stranger (according to the owner because the dog detected a stranger who was having a diabetic crisis). Overall, it was an odd encounter and left me wondering if it was really a service dog based on it's behavior. Also, are service dogs allowed in stores without the person with the disability (this dog was for his wife who was not there)? Also when dogs are trained to provide a service for someone with a disability, is it common for them to be able to detect those symptoms in someone across a store and respond to it?